MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

I extend a welcome to all members back to the House of Assembly for the fall session, but before we proceed with routine proceedings I would like to observe an old parliamentary tradition. I have the pleasant task of formally introducing a member who was elected in the by-election held on November 1, 2006. She is Ms Lorraine Michael in the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I have been advised by the Clerk of the House of Assembly that Ms Michael has made her affirmation of allegiance to the Crown as required by the Constitution and has signed the Members' Roll. The member shall now proceed to the front of the House of Assembly.

CLERK (Mr. Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present Ms Lorraine Michael, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, who claims her right to take her seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Ms Michael, welcome to the House of Assembly, and let the member take her seat in this House.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon, as well, we have another new face in our House. He sits at the Table at the center of the Chamber. He is Mr. William MacKenzie. We offer congratulations and best wishes to Mr. William MacKenzie, the new Clerk of the House of Assembly and Secretary of the Commission of Internal Economy.

Mr. MacKenzie has served a number of executive positions in the civil service, including Acting Deputy Minister in the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, and Assistant Deputy Minister in the Department of Government Services.

We welcome Mr. MacKenzie to his position and we wish him well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon, as well, we are pleased to welcome some special guests in the Speaker's gallery. One face is somewhat familiar to us. A pleasant welcome to Mr. Jack Harris, and for the first time since I have been here I can call a member by his name. Welcome to him, the former Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

We also have Laura English and Frances Ennis, and we have Rosemarie Harvey, Greg Malone, White Malone, Nancy Riche and Suzanne Sarioglu. Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I am also pleased to welcome two new Pages to our House. Mr. Geoffrey Blackwood is a graduate of Lester B. Pearson Memorial High School in Wesleyville and is currently a student at Memorial University. Welcome, Geoffrey.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We also have Mr. Michael Young. Michael is from St. John's and is a graduate of Prince of Wales Collegiate. He is enrolled in third-year studies in political science at Memorial. Welcome, Michael.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We are also pleased to welcome back Matthew Sheppard and Shannon Tobin.

I am also pleased to advise the House that Mr. Calvin Lake has been appointed Chief Legislative Counsel to the House of Assembly. The former Clerk occupied both positions. In the future, Mr. Calvin Lake will be the Chief Legislative Counsel to the House.

Before we proceed further in the agenda for this afternoon, I would be remiss if I did not mention the passing of two valued employees since we last met in this House.

On November 6, Kathleen St. Croix was a victim of a tragic vehicle accident while on her way to work in our offices, in the Hansard office. Kay was a most delightful individual, a wonderful employee, and a lady who brought sunshine into our lives every day with her great sense of humour.

On November 7, Beverley Harnum passed after a brief but valiant struggle with cancer. Beverley worked as the political assistant to the Member for St. Barbe, the Member for Windsor-Springdale and, lastly, for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Beverley was one of those individuals who touched our lives in many positive ways. She will be missed by all those who were fortunate enough to meet her. We send to her family, and the family of Kay St. Croix, our deepest condolences.

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright- L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for the District of Windsor-Springdale; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Topsail; the hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; and the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's North.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to remember a fallen marine, Leading Seaman Travis Pye, a native of the southeastern Labrador community of St. Lewis and crewman on the HMCS St. John's.

Travis joined the Navy in August, 2003, through the Canadian Forces recruiting group in Corner Brook. After completing two years of training at the Canadian Forces Naval Engineering School in St. John's, he began his career as a Marine Engineering Technician and was promoted to Leading Seaman in September, 2005. Subsequently, he joined the HMCS St. John's, having already served on the HMCS Ville de Quebec and the HMCS Fredericton.

Travis was buried with full military honors in St. John's on November 13, 2006. His family and friends were joined by military personnel, including our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, Travis was a young seaman who had committed himself to a great country and a great Province. He showed his courage by stepping up to the plate and being prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for Canada.

His sister described him as an outgoing and adventurous person. His comrades described him as very dependable, with a great sense of humour.

Travis has been laid to rest in the Field of Honour in Mount Pleasant Cemetery. He will be sadly missed by both his Labrador family, his military family, and his many friends.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in expressing our condolences to his father Roy, his mother Catherine, his sister Vanessa, brothers Markus and Matthew, and other family and friends.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Mr. Speaker and fellow hon. Members of the House of Assembly, I rise in this hon. House today with great pride to congratulate the Town of Springdale for receiving the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities Torngat Municipal Achievement Award.

This award is symbolic of Springdale's efforts in economic development in the past years. Mayor Kevin Pollard stated that the hard work and dedication of all staff and councillors working as a team has brought this development to Springdale.

In October of 1999 the Town of Springdale was able to hire Todd Mercer as their Economic Development Officer. I have had the pleasure of working with Todd over the past seven years, and I have to say he is definitely an asset to the Town of Springdale. His excitement and enthusiasm for the development of Springdale is unmatched. Since being hired, there is a company from Texas, two new franchises, new grocery stores, a $3 million seniors' complex, a private seniors' cottage development, and also a four star inn on the banks of Indian River, and many more are on the horizon.

I would ask that all hon. members rise with me today and congratulate the Town of Springdale on their success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate Craig Sharpe of Upper Island Cove on his momentous achievement in the recent Canadian Idol contest. Craig was runner-up to Eva Avila.

On the last night of the competition, more than half the town turned out to cheer for their idol. The Upper Island Cove Recreation Centre was filled to capacity, with standing room only. The excitement that had been building all summer was evident in the hall. It was quite an experience to see such support and excitement for this young man who captured the hearts of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as well as Canadians throughout this country.

Mr. Speaker, Craig's proud grandparents, Susie and Graham Lynch and Marjorie and Edward Sharpe, took part in the celebrations. His parents, Calvin and Linda Sharpe, along with his sister and brother, were in Toronto for the sixteen-year-old singer's finale.

Mr. Speaker, four of the Canadian Idol finalists who made it to the top five over the last four years were Newfoundlanders, three from Conception Bay North and, believe it or not, two from the Town of Upper Island Cove.

Mr. Speaker, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians we are extremely proud of Craig's accomplishment, and I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Craig Sharpe, our Canadian Idol. We wish him the very best on his future singing career.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today to congratulate Mr. Mike Tobin, a resident of Conception Bay South and Vice-Principal at Roncali Elementary School.

Mr. Tobin was one of 200 teachers selected world wide by the Honeywell sponsored prestigious Space Academy for Educators Program; designed to help teachers inspire and evoke student interest in math, science, engineering and technology.

Two hundred teachers, including Mike, were given a fully paid scholarship to attend the United States Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama this past June.

The intensive curriculum focused on space exploration, math and technology, in addition to receiving some real life astronaut training.

Mike was also one of four teachers given "The Right Stuff Award" for his leadership and team building skills. With this award, Mike received an additional scholarship from Honeywell sending either a teacher or student from his school to attend a one week program at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center next summer. Mike has told me that the Space Educator program at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center was an experience of a lifetime, in which he learned new teaching tools that will benefit the learning of all his students and hopefully spark some greater interest in the areas of science and technology.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating Mike Tobin on this significant achievement.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased today to rise and pay tribute to the Canadian Union of Postal Workers Family and Child Care Connections on its tenth anniversary which was celebrated on November 3.

Family and Child Care Connections is a wonderful community-based, not for profit family resource centre which provides programs and services designed to support community children, their families, members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and child care providers.

The concept of an agency to connect families with trained registered family child care providers is unique in the Province. Family and Child Care Connections are committed to offering leadership in early childhood development and care and the training of child care providers.

Over the ten years that they have been in existence, they have served 1,200 families and 1,500 children in the St. John's and surrounding areas. Currently, they have thirty family child care providers registered with them.

I ask all members of the House to join with me in congratulating Lynn Smyth and staff, and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, on ten years of leadership and service in the community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the next member, I apologize for omitting the name of Helen Murphy among those guests who are in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon attending because of the special day for the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

The Chair recognizes the Member for St. John's North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Mr. Speaker, today I want to congratulate John Lamkin who, earlier this year, was selected by St. John's Parks and Recreation to receive the Building Healthy Communities award. This award is given to individuals whose volunteer efforts make an outstanding contribution to improving their community; anyone who knows John will understand that the award is richly deserved.

John Lamkin has had a life filled with performing services for others. He has been volunteering with the Rabbittown Tenants' Association for twenty-three years. Over the years, John has organized and taken part in many community functions, such as Canada Day Celebrations, the Winter Carnival and Family Fun Day. In short, he is one of the pillars at Rabbittown.

In addition, John has found time to volunteer with # 93, NLCC Fort Pepperell for the past eleven years, the last two years as Commanding Officer. He has spent eighteen years as a volunteer with Scouts and eight years as band officer with the 514 Air Cadet Squadron.

Mr. Speaker, John Lamkin is a shining example of a person who has dedicated himself unselfishly to helping other people. I ask all members of the House to join me in recognizing and congratulating Mr. Lamkin on having been selected for the Building Healthy Communities award.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this week marks National Addictions Awareness Week and I rise today to express our government's commitment to increasing addictions awareness.

In conjunction with National Addictions Week, I was pleased today, as the Chair of the Council of the Federation, to launch a national awareness campaign on crystal meth and other addictive drugs. This campaign includes local and national newspaper ads, on-line banner ads and Web sites which provide important information to teens and their parents, including warning signs and physical effects of crystal meth and other addictive drugs.

The Council of the Federation first discussed this issue at our 2005 summer meeting at the request of Premier Calvert of Saskatchewan. During the 2006 summer meeting held here in St. John's, the premiers reaffirmed our commitment to raising awareness of the serious harmful effects of addictive drugs in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is pleased to join all of Canada's provinces and territories in participating in this campaign. Our government has been an advocate of preventing drug use and other addictive behaviour, and we have made significant investments to help those who suffer from drug, alcohol and gambling addictions.

Our government created an OxyContin Task Force, we funded the establishment of a badly-needed new methadone clinic, and we implemented a VLT Reduction Strategy to immediately reduce the number of VLTs in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, in Budget 2006, we invested $1 million in new funding for primary prevention and treatment of addictions, including nine additional counsellors. Earlier this month, I joined with several others in turning sod on the new addictions treatment centre in Corner Brook, another investment by our government of over $1 million. As well, our provincial "Get Up On It" campaign aims to prevent addictions among our Province's youth by encouraging them to learn the real facts and to make smart personal choices.

These are just some of the many, many initiatives this government has undertaken to address the social issues facing the people of our Province. We have demonstrated time and time again our commitment to help those who need help most, and we will continue to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to make a few comments, of course, with regard to National Addictions Awareness Week. I think that any time the provincial government can be involved in a campaign that is out there to educate our children and society in general about the effects of drugs and alcohol in society it is important, and I am pleased to see that they are a part of this national campaign.

Mr. Speaker, it goes as no secret to any of us the seriousness of drug abuse in our society, not just on the streets but it is in our schools, it is in our play yards and it is in our homes. Mr. Speaker, it is important that government take whatever action is necessary to eradicate drug abuse in our society. I think that their efforts thus far have been a testament to their ability and their interest in tackling this issue, but it does not go far enough. I think that the recent stories in the past few months about the methadone clinics and the lineups and the wait lists of patients who are waiting for methadone treatment in itself is a testament that we need to do more. We need to do more to counteract this particular problem and to ensure that people who want the help get the help, to ensure that the children in our schools are educated and they know what the impacts and the implications are.

So, Mr. Speaker, for our part in it, any time the provincial government can play a role to allocate money to be a part of an awareness campaign, we are certainly all for it and will do whatever it takes to support it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

We, too, Mr. Speaker, applaud government's efforts in any way that they may decide to help tackle the problem of drug abuse in our Province. All too much we hear on the news about different crimes that have been committed related to drug use in the Province, and addictions. The new centre in Corner Brook, Mr. Speaker, will certainly be welcomed in this Province as we go forward in a new era of treating persons with addictions.

With regard to the VLT reduction numbers in the Province, I wonder at some point in the near future if government would give us an update, Mr. Speaker, as to the number of VLTs that were in the Province prior to the reduction strategy as to what is in the Province today. I think we would welcome to hear those numbers.

I would also like to take -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. R. COLLINS: The other thing I would just like to mention quickly, Mr. Speaker, is that, while government's ads on television and radio are very well put together, I must say we have other agencies like the ALC who have their ads out showing many happy people winning millions of dollars but, at the same time, when the ad is over, Mr. Speaker, a number for anyone with problems to call comes up on the screen. After watching it twenty-five or thirty times, I have yet to see it on the screen long enough to be able to read and find out what the number is.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my colleagues that this Tuesday and Wednesday over 100 community stakeholders and government partners of the Violence Prevention Initiative will gather in St. John's.

This is the first time that partners of the Violence Prevention Initiative have come together and reflects one of the commitments made this year in the new Violence Prevention Initiative Action Plan 2006-2012.

The theme of this meeting is: Building Capacity in our Communities. It will include community volunteers, police officers, members of the regional coordinating committees and representatives from youth and seniors' groups. Participants will learn how to raise awareness of violence prevention, how to engage people in their communities, and how to use research to educate the public.

Mr. Speaker, communities and government must work together to provide services to those in violent situations and to spread the message that violence is unacceptable.

With the horrific event in Bay d'Espoir, it is clear that much work is still needed to combat violence. This week's meeting will strengthen community-government partnerships, and ensure that all partners are equipped with the information they need to create real change in our Province.

This government is investing $7.2 million over the next six years because we want to see a dramatic impact on violence prevention and public awareness.

A critical component of this is getting our message to our young people, which is one of the goals of the Safe and Caring Schools Policy. This is an extremely important document. Every student in this Province deserves to attend a peaceful school and to know they are safe from violence. They must learn from an early age that any form of bullying or aggression simply will not be tolerated.

Clearly, creating peaceful schools requires proactive programming, effective partnerships, and the dedication of students, teachers and parents alike. It also requires hard work, but all students deserve to learn and grow safely.

Government is also acting on its commitment to create a violence prevention marketing campaign that will raise awareness about violence prevention with as many people in our Province as possible. This campaign will be launched in the near future.

People across our Province have long been working to combat violence. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, this government is determined to work with community groups to reduce violence. I would encourage everyone here today to spread the message in your districts that violence is unacceptable.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to certainly make a few comments with regard to this initiative. Violence prevention initiatives in our society today are desperately needed. I think that we have to remain committed to our goal of a violence-free society, where everyone, including women and children, feel safe.

We all know that violence has a grave impact on society in general. I think we only have to look at the tragic incidents in Bay d'Espoir a few weeks ago, and in Hermitage just back a few months ago, where we had a murder-suicide in those communities, tragically shaking the Province, Mr. Speaker, because the reality of it hits home to us, that domestic violence is out there. It is in the homes of people around our Province, and it is not a private issue, Mr. Speaker, it is a public issue. It is an issue that has to be dealt with in the public realm, and therefore we have a responsibility to not just deal with those things that might exist outside of the doorways of our houses but those things that exist within the families of the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we also have to look at the roots of violence. Violence in our society is caused through many different facets and it is impacted by many different things, whether it be drug abuse, whether it be financial stress, whether it be poverty, whether it be depression, whether it be the economic situation that we find ourselves in. All of these things collectively affect violence in our society, and if government is ever going to appropriately deal with the violence that exists it has to deal with the roots of violence as well. That means counteracting things like poverty in our society, the financial stresses and burdens that people have, the drug addictions that are out there, ensuring that people have access to proper mental health services when they need it and so on, because all of these things have an impact.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say in -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MS JONES: Just a minute to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Has leave been granted?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MS JONES: The fact that this particular forum is bringing together volunteers is a positive sign, because you have to remember, it is the volunteers in our society who first started the real advocacy for violence out there and to be able to have programs that were channelled towards violence; people like the women's groups, like women's shelters, like counsellors, like churches. These people, Mr. Speaker, are the ones who are on the front lines dealing with these situations every day and could no doubt provide the best directions for government in terms of where they should be investing in initiatives like this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I too want to speak to what has been put forward today by the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women. Obviously, I am very pleased with the steps that are being taken through the Violence Prevention Initiative. I also echo what my colleague has just said as well, however I would like to speak to something else.

While we have to prevent violence, violence is still going on. I think part of the prevention initiative is also dealing more forthrightly and strongly with creating safe places for women who are currently in violent situations. That is a message as well to the community, that is part of the message to those who are violating, that is part of the message to all of society, that women should not be in violent situations.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will make is very short. Therefore, I say that we have to have more resources going into safe places for women. Very few of our communities are safe for women - the urban centres, a small number of rural areas - we need safety for women all over this Province and I encourage the minister and the government to think about putting more resources into safe places for women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise in this House to recognize today as National Child Day. The theme of this year's National Child Day is The right to be heard, as recognized by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Not only is it a child's right to have a voice in matters that affect them, but providing children with the opportunity to express themselves helps children to learn and to communicate effectively.

It is fitting that this day of recognition coincides as well, Mr. Speaker, with our Provincial Child and Youth Advocacy Week, which runs from November 19-25. The Office of the Child and Youth Advocate ensures that the voices of our Province's children are heard so that responsible decisions are made on their behalf. Our government is committed to working in partnership with the Child and Youth Advocate to ensure that the needs of our children are, in fact, met.

Mr. Speaker, children are amongst the most vulnerable members of our society and we all have a responsibility to protect and nurture them. National Child Day serves as a reminder of the importance of guarding the rights of children and providing them with a safe and appropriate environment for their healthy development.

Mr. Speaker, government is committed to the health and well-being of the children of Newfoundland and Labrador. To better meet the needs of our children, our government has made several strategic investments during the past year. Our new Early Learning and Child Care Plan sets out several initiatives to support quality care and learning experiences that will yield lifelong benefits. Specifically, the plan contains initiatives to: make child care more affordable for families; it supports training and other measures to attract more people into the field of child care; it also increases the number of spaces in rural and under serviced areas of the Province; it supports the inclusion of children with special needs; it improves the quality and developmental opportunities for children as well.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, our Provincial Wellness Plan sets out strategies that support healthy living to improve the health and well-being of the children of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, in keeping with our government's commitment to improve the health of our Province's children, government invested $4.1 million this year to improve the children's dental health plan. The increased contribution by government has removed the financial burden carried by parents for dental services, benefitting approximately 67,000 children in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage residents to participate in local events across our Province celebrating National Child Day. I also ask my colleagues to wear a blue ribbon to mark this special day. Join with me, I ask my colleagues, and show your support for the most precious and the most important resource in Newfoundland and Labrador - our children.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, children need advocates, and I think we all understand that in society, someone to stand up for them, someone to stand up for their rights and for what they believe in. I think today, on National Child Day, we have seen that from the parents of Paradise Elementary when they stood on the steps of Confederation Building, Mr. Speaker, standing up for good schools, clean schools, healthy, safe schools, for the children of this Province, Mr. Speaker, and for the children of their community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: To me, that is the kind of child care representation that we need in this Province.

I was absolutely saddened, Mr. Speaker, in the spring, when the federal government, under the National Child Care Program, decided to cut millions of dollars in child care in this Province and all across the country, but the government opposite, Mr. Speaker, did not stand up for child care benefits for the children of this Province at that time, because they were going to pick their battles and this was not one of the battles that they were going to pick.

Mr. Speaker, on a day like this, this is the kind of time that there is a real testament to whether you believe in the rights and support the rights and support the benefits of children throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

I say to the government opposite: Do the right thing, stand up for child care benefits, stand up for healthy and safe schools for our children in this Province, and put your money where your mouth is.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for a copy of his statement.

I want to say to the minister that we agree completely that providing children with safe and appropriate environments for healthy development, and supporting the inclusion of children with special needs, and improving quality and developmental opportunities for children are quite important.

I do not normally do this, Mr. Speaker, but I will use an individual case to illustrate some of the problems that we have in the Province today. It is addressed, To Whom It May Concern, which, Mr. Speaker, should be all of us.

I am writing this letter to let you know what is happening to me. I was born without the use of my legs so I depend on a wheelchair to get where I want to go. The only time I get to be with my friends is when I am at school. Last week the wheelchair lift broke once again so I spent the day in the Principal's office; not because I did anything wrong but because I had no way to get upstairs. About eight months ago my mom and I put my story in the local...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. R. COLLINS: ...newspaper hoping we could get a new lift because this one keeps breaking down. The staff at the school help me get up the stairs at the school by lifting me, but it took so long to get fixed that they told me they couldn't do it any longer. I can't get to my home room to be with my classmates. I have no way to get to the library or gym, or even eat my dinner with all the other kids in the lunch room. The wheelchair lift is so old that they can't buy the parts, they have to make them. I would like to have a new lift so that I can have the same opportunities as any other child my own age. How would you like it if you had to get someone to lift you to get you where you want to go? I will have many challenges in my life but my education shouldn't be one of them.

I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker - and I spoke with the appropriate ministers at the time - that in 2004 this lift was broken for four months, in 2005 it was broken for two, it broke earlier this year and now it is broken again. I ask both ministers to get together, talk to the school board officials and, on behalf of Joshua Day who is eleven years old attending J.R. Smallwood in Wabush, get this problem fixed once and for all by the installation of a new chairlift.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago we all witnessed something that stirred all of our hearts and will continue to have an impact or an affect on us for some time to come. What I am referring to is the more than 9,000 people who lined up on Kenmount Road to search for employment outside of our Province. This was a symbol that demonstrated to us, and most in the Province, the failure of this government and this Premier to make good on promises and commitments to provide new economic opportunities and employment for our people.

I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Are there any plans to curb out-migration, or are you and your government satisfied with the status quo, the exodus of our people?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the hon. member's question. I mean the facts are, quite simply, that right now unemployment in our Province is the lowest that it has been in fifteen years. We have not gone out and heralded that because we continue to put our heads down and try and work and create jobs. I did not like to see the lineup any more than anybody else did. I was completely surprised by it, but the fact is - and everybody knows it - that there is a huge draw in Alberta right now because of high wages. In fact, 12,000 people left Atlantic Canada this year and it was virtually equal between Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador. About 4,000 people left from every province. So, it is not a phenomena that is unique to Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, the total that came from the Atlantic provinces was only 5 per cent, about 30 per cent came from Ontario. This is happening, it is a fact of life, it is not something I like, it is not something we like, it is not something the people of Newfoundland and Labrador like, but people are going to go down - if they are attracted by a $100,000-plus salary and a chance to make it, they are going to go down and they are going to make inquiries.

The truth of the matter is: How many people were actually hired as a result of that job fair, and how many people went down out of curiosity? That is not to say that this government is not working diligently to create employment in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the Premier misses the point. He talks about the employment rate going up in our Province or the unemployment rate going down. The reason for that is obvious, everybody is leaving.

Mr. Speaker, over 9,000 people stood in line wanting to leave this Province for the lack of opportunity. It appears that they will be forced to join in with some 15,000 others who left here last year. Meanwhile, the Premier is content to allow mills to close, fish plants to close and remain idle, and the oil and gas workers taking off to search for new opportunities elsewhere because he killed the Hebron-Ben Nevis deal. It appears that the Premier has no problem doing business deals that will help his business associates and friends.

I ask the Premier: When will your priority change from finding opportunities for your friends to finding opportunities for other average Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: That is why that will be the effective Opposition down there. Those two people who sit in those seats will be the effective Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: That is why you will be the ineffective Opposition. It is quite obvious.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we will continue doing what we are doing. What we are doing is creating jobs and employment. If the Leader will just sit back for a minute and listen to some of the things that we have been doing; We just invested $10 million with Cooke Aquaculture, an investment they had no problem with. It was a New Brunswick company but they had no concern with that, but they have a problem with the Persona contract. That will create 170 jobs. We will be putting $10 million into an Aquaculture Working Capital Loan Guarantee, that will create a total of 350 new jobs in the aquaculture sector. I am sure the hon. Member for Fortune will not have any problem with that. You will not have a problem with that under any circumstances, neither will Grand Bank, Fortune, because we are creating jobs on the South Coast.

As well, Mr. Speaker, we have spent $280 million this year on infrastructure. Now that has created 3,360 person years of employment in this Province. That is on roads, and that is on hospitals, and that is on schools.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Those are jobs, Mr. Speaker, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and the hon. member has a problem with that. We have also spent, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask members if they could keep their questions and their responses to about a minute.

I recognize the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, now that we are talking about this government looking after its friends, I would like to ask some questions about the $15 million that the Premier gave to these close friends and business associates a couple of weeks ago.

I will direct my question to the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, because, as he stated, the Premier was not part of that decision to give his friends the money. Then again the Premier stated it was his decision to remove the proposal from the agenda twice, on two different occasions.

Would the minister please explain whether the Premier was or was not part of the decision-making process, and who is telling the correct story here?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition might know, the Premier gets a briefing book every day before Cabinet, the same as his Premier would have gotten. I guess he did anyway. Although, given some of the decisions that they took, perhaps he was never briefed on some of the things that went on in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: However, Mr. Speaker, our Premier gets a briefing book every day. He looks at what is in the briefing book. Was he part of the Cabinet decision on the Persona deal? No, Mr. Speaker. I can say, categorically, he was not. He removed himself from the Cabinet room on a number of occasions and when the decision was taken, Mr. Speaker, the Premier was not involved in the decision and was not a party to that decision and was informed of the decision after the fact. Furthermore, there was a letter from the Chief of Staff in the Premier's Office to the then Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development - sometime last fall I believe it was - saying that this issue was on the go, that all further inquires will be directed to the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, and the department and the Premier's office would not be involved.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister continues to confuse, I think, the general population every time he stands to speak.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier stated during a television, or two television interviews last week, that he killed the deal twice himself, personally, because it could not pass the smell test. I ask the minister to give the dates when this proposal first was rejected and explain what has happened since these meetings that would have improved the smell or at least covered up some of the odor?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the exact dates because I am not sure, but I believe one was either late June or early July. The other, Mr. Speaker, was either late July or early August. I am not sure of the exact times but it was probably about a month apart.

Mr. Speaker, what we tried to do was when the proposal came forward we went to solicit further advice on whether or not this was a good deal. We have solicited advice from EWA-Canada who, Mr. Speaker, I can say has a lot more knowledge about the information technology industry in Canada than the Leader of the Opposition will ever have.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Or me, I agree, Mr. Speaker.

That is why we went out, see. That is why we went out, because we acknowledge that we did not have all of the knowledge to make the decision, Mr. Speaker. That is why we went outside. That is why we approached Memorial University. That is why we approached the College of the North Atlantic. That is why we approached the Newfoundland & Labrador Association of Technology Industries. That is why I talked to Industry Canada, to solicit their views on whether this was a good deal and whether it should be done, and they said yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have heard much from this government regarding openness, accountability and transparency. None of it has any basis, in fact, which we will demonstrate in the coming weeks in this Legislature; however, I will give the minister an opportunity to table a copy of the deal and proposals that were discussed that led to the $15 million going to the Premier's friends and business associates.

Minister, if there is nothing to hide, will you table today this documentation so that we can all have a look at it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem tabling documents associated with this deal. As a matter of fact, I brought one here today. I had planned on tabling it under Tabling of Reports later in the sitting, when you are supposed to do that, Mr. Speaker, but in the interest of openness, transparency and accountability, here it is, Mr. Speaker, right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Who are these people, Mr. Speaker, and who do they work for? EWA-Canada Corporate Profile: our clients include the Department of National Defense Communications Security Establishment, the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Nortel, Bell Canada - imagine that, Bell Canada is a client of theirs - and many other national, provincial and regional government, law enforcement, financial, energy, telecommunications and business organizations. The technical staff is currently comprised of thirty-two full-time highly qualified electronic engineers, systems analysts and programer analysts, many with extensive backgrounds in IT systems, security -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week, on an Open Line show, the minister read a Minute-in-Council of a Cabinet paper that discussed the fibre optic deal.

I ask the minister: Now that you are prepared to table that document will you indeed, as well, table the Cabinet document to which you referred on the Open Line show, and every other piece of documentation related to this -

AN HON. MEMBER: And briefing notes.

MR. REID: - and briefing notes related to this deal?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, boy, and we will go and get the financial statements too.

Mr. Speaker, I will table, without any undue obstruction to the Leader of the Opposition and anybody in this Province, all the information that I can provide as it relates to this deal.

Mr. Speaker, there is, obviously, as the Leader of the Opposition would know, proprietary information sometimes that cannot be released.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Never mind, now. I didn't say we were not going to release anything.

Mr. Speaker, there are obviously some things that, no matter what, cannot be released; but, Mr. Speaker, we are in the process right now, on some of this, having it filtered through the ATIP office. Anything that would normally be released through the Access to Information and Privacy offices, Mr. Speaker, can be certainly presented in this House and released to anybody in the general public. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, as the Premier said last week, we welcome the Auditor General's review of this file at any time, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: I say to the minister: You might welcome that the Auditor General look at it, but you already axed the public accounts from holding public hearings on it, haven't you?

Mr. Speaker, this was an unsolicited proposal from friends and associates of the Premier. I ask the minister: Who in government was first approached regarding this deal, and who made the decision that this would not go to public tender or go out for a Request for Proposals?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, in all honesty, could not tell who the initial person contacted was. I assume it was probably somebody in the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, although, if that is able to be found out, I will certainly endeavor to find it out.

As for who made the decision on whether an RFP or a public tender would be called or not, that was a Cabinet decision; but, Mr. Speaker, I can say categorically that it was a Cabinet decision made on advice by me, a Cabinet decision also that was made on the advice of the committee responsible for the Canadian Strategic Infrastructure Fund, and the reason we did that, Mr. Speaker - but it makes no difference, you can say this a million times because it is not politically expedient for the Leader of the Opposition to hear it, but the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker - we were told once again by EWA-Canada that the only people who we could reasonably expect to put forward a proposal under a tender call or a Request for Proposal call were the people who were involved with this: Rogers, Persona and MTS Allstream. The only other participants that they could reasonably expect - and it is here in black and white, they might get a chance to read it if they can, Mr. Speaker - the only thing that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, the minister just admitted he did not know who this group approached first, so it could have been the Premier is what you are saying. They may have approached the Premier about the deal first, because you do not know who they approached first.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, in The Telegram newspaper, Dean MacDonald of Persona stated that this consortium held only four meetings with government before they were given a $15 million grant by this government.

I ask the minister: With whom did Mr. MacDonald meet, and when?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that it makes no difference what answers you provide to the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that he is only interested in making a political mockery out of this. That is all his interest is, Mr. Speaker. He has no interest in knowing that EWA said the high-level conclusions of the review were, there were no major financial or technical shortcomings or omissions in the Persona proposal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: The overall costs (inaudible) are reasonable and within -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. the minister, and the Chair asks him to continue his response.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The business case provides for a very modest rate of return. The capital costs assumed by Persona to complete the cross-Gulf connection are consistent with other similar projects - for example, the Magdalen Islands project - and with industry norms, an opinion that Persona clearly requires the provincial funds of $15 million to implement the project.

So, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the minister does not know what he is talking about and he refuses to answer the question.

A simple question: With whom did Mr. MacDonald meet, and when?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak to Dean MacDonald's comments in the paper. I can only say this, Mr. Speaker: I met -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, would you mind gagging the Leader of the Opposition so I can answer his question?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues, time is scarce and the brevity of questions and answers is important. The Chair recognizes the minister and asks him to complete his response.

MR. TAYLOR: You might, Mr. Speaker, gag the Member for the Bay of Islands while you are at it, too. If he wants to get up and ask a question, I say, Mr. Speaker, get up and go for it, and when they ask the question stop for a minute and I will answer it, if they are interested in an answer, which they obviously are not because they are only interested in making a political football out of these issues. They are not interested in the fact that this is good for economic development in Newfoundland and Labrador. They are not interested in the fact that Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic have -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: - commended this as a good deal that will facilitate increased research here in Newfoundland and Labrador. They have no interest in the fact that the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Technology Industries has again applauded this deal because it serves well the technology industries in Newfoundland and Labrador and their ability to grow the economy in Newfoundland and Labrador. They care not that this goes ashore on the Burin Peninsula -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In referring to a child who had stopped breathing during a power outage of October, 2006, and had to be driven to a nearby hospital after calls to 911 failed, the Premier stated in the media - and this was in trying to justify the fibre optic deal - he said: That alone is a significant, serious situation, there could have been a loss of life. So anytime you are taking safety and life loss, that is obviously paramount.

Mr. Speaker, if this is how the Premier truly feels, why is it that government is not giving paramedics the special consideration that they need to be given, like other groups have been given in the past, to prevent a serious situation from occurring in our hospitals?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am presuming that the member opposite is talking about the EMS, or rural paramedics, and if that is the case, I can say that we understand the issue of medical control. In fact, when it comes to -

MS JONES: Pharmacists is what I am talking about, not paramedics - pharmacists.

MR. T. OSBORNE: You said paramedics.

MS JONES: Pharmacists

MR. T. OSBORNE: Pharmacists.

Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I will allow the member to repeat her question.

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, you will have to forgive me because, as you know, both pharmacists and paramedics have very serious issues today that need to be dealt with.

My question to the minister is with regard to pharmacists. If the government truly believes in the statement that the Premier made, why is it they are not putting the money into pharmacists to ensure they stay in the Province, in our hospitals, and not be leaving?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I do recognize the good work that the hospital pharmacists do. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we are taking measures and we are working with the regional health authorities to improve the working environment within the hospitals to allow hospital pharmacists to do more clinical work, which is really what they want to do.

When it comes to recruitment, Mr. Speaker - in fact, Labrador has recruited three pharmacists over the last twelve months. Eastern has recruited three pharmacists over the last twelve months. So, Mr. Speaker, we have been recruiting pharmacists. The claims by the Opposition member over the past couple of months that we have not been able to recruit is not, in fact, factual.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is there was a deal agreed to in the spring. That deal was ratified by the union during the summer and it was signed in August. It is very difficult, after a deal is signed by their union, to reopen those negotiations and to do a one-off deal with a group of people within that union.

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a retention issue in the pharmacies in our hospitals in this Province, where pharmacists are leaving. There has been precedence in the Province before where there have been separate negotiations with members of the Allied Health Professionals in our medical system.

Why is the minister not prepared to deal with pharmacists in light of the situation we have today, which is developing into a crisis situation throughout Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, and Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I said publicly last week and I will say it again, and I said it on several occasions last week, that this government is prepared to sit down with all of the unions that have employees and members out there working in our system today where it is hard to recruit or hard to retain people. We are interested in sitting down and looking at a collective one that would deal with all of these areas. The unions are willing to do that. I am ready to meet, as the President of Treasury Board, at any time to look at hard-to-address situations, but we need the consent. We do not think it is fair for us to do it with one group and not deal with other issues with other groups. We would like to do it collectively. We will sit down with all of them. My door is open if they want to move in that direction.

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance likes to pride himself in dishing out the medicine to the pharmacists in this Province, but I would like to ask him: Who is going to dish out the medicines and the formulas in our health care corporation down here on Park Drive when all the pharmacists have left? With $1 million you could have done a deal with the pharmacists, you choose not to. You invest $15 million into fibre optics. Minister, you owe someone an explanation.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government has not invested one cent in this budget into fibre optics in this particular deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: What we have done - we did a commitment in 2007-2008, and 2008-2009, to (inaudible) it. What I will say -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues, a question has been asked and it is only reasonable that time be given to the minister to give the response.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We gave the courtesy of hearing it, I would like the courtesy of responding to it, if the member would not mind. If she does not want to do that, put it in writing and I will mail her a response. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared - we realize and we understand there are numerous professions in this Province, medical and otherwise, where it is difficult to recruit people and retain people. We fully understand that. We signed an agreement on August 21. We are in the third year of that four-year agreement and we have indicated that we are prepared to look at hard-to-recruit, hard-to-retain areas. We understand they provide a valuable service. We fully understand it. We understand the issue but it is unfair to do it with one group when there are several other groups knocking on our door. We will deal collectively with all groups and did some that is fair and represents the people of the Province and not do one-off agreements.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I do not remember the minister having a problem doing one-offs with the lab technicians, or X-ray technicians back a few years ago when it needed to be done in the Province.

My next question is with regard to the paramedics, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: I did not hear the minister voice his opposition to it though.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister: The paramedics in this area have raised a number of issues with regard to the services and the conditions under which they work. His department, more than six months ago, said they were going to deal with this issue. Have they dealt with it? By the sounds of it, they have not. I would like to ask him why he is dragging his heels on it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, we have, in fact, started to deal with this. Medical control is one of the issues that the EMS operators have raised. In fact, we are hiring. It has been advertised. I am sure that if the member opposite was doing her research she would have seen that there are four positions advertised to deal with the medical control issue. They should be recruited and hired within the coming months. We will get on with dealing with the medical control situation.

When it comes to the negotiations, Mr. Speaker, those negotiations are set to begin - I believe it is tomorrow, and I can confirm that with the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, but the negotiations with the EMS operators are beginning tomorrow afternoon.

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, just this past week a school in our Province was deemed not fit for children or staff to attend and was closed. In the middle of this school year Paradise Elementary students, parents and staff are now experiencing a serious disruption in their lives.

I ask the minister: When can those affected expect a new school to ensure the current band-aid solution does not become a permanent one?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, recently we have been dealing with some air quality issues at Paradise Elementary School. As the hon. member indicated, we felt that for the safety reasons of the children, that they should go to alternate locations until we have the work completed.

Mr. Speaker, we have Occupational Health and Safety involved and we also consult with the medical officer when we do air quality testing in that area. We were not told by any of the consultants that we had to close the school; however, there were recommendations for remedial work that needed to be done and we felt that in order to get the work done and in order to be able to do it as quickly as we could, we felt it would be best for the students not to be in the school at that time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the important issue here is the health and safety of the children and we want to make sure, if there is remedial work that is required to be done, that it will be done. We also want to be assured that, before the students go back into that school, we do testing after the work is done to ensure that it is a safe environment. That is our priority at this time, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Child care needs continue to be a serious problem in this Province. Having a child care plan is an essential part of a poverty reduction strategy while at the same time promoting economic growth. Since the change in the federal government's commitment to financing a child care plan, the provincial government has watered down the commitment it made in signing the agreement with the Martin government in 2005.

In light of the fact that government was quite willing to put $15 million into an untendered private cable structure without due process, my question is for the Premier: Will government make child care a priority, as it has in the case of the fibre optic project, and will it invest in the children and parents of this Province by creating adequate child care spaces so that more people, especially women, may receive training and participate in the workforce while their children enjoy the protection of regulated child care?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I congratulate the Leader of the NDP on her first question.

I will say that we have made child care a priority in this Province. In fact, on May 24 of this year, Mr. Speaker, we did unveil our Early Learning and Child Care Plan that was strongly supported by the industry, it was strongly supported by the association and, in fact, this year, as a result of that plan, Mr. Speaker, we have created I believe it is 500 new spaces in the Province for children within early learning and child care centres.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: The government's child care plan has offered a full subsidy for families up to $25,000. In the case with pharmacare, the subsidy has gone to families with income of $30,000, and after the $25,000 for child care there is a sliding scale. What I want to know, Mr. Minister, is: Will government raise the income level of families eligible for full subsidy to families whose income is at or below the poverty level?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly have a look at that suggestion. We operate within our fiscal means. In this Province, Mr. Speaker, right now, 46 per cent of every dollar spent in this Province is spent in health. That includes early learning and child care plans. We have put $62 million on an annualized basis into poverty reduction in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the Early Learning and Child Care Plan that we have announced. It has been strongly endorsed by the industry and by the association. We have had very, very positive remarks back from all involved. We are doing a number of things within that strategy, including recruiting and retaining more early learning and child care educators, creating more spaces in rural areas for children. We have increased the threshold for which people can qualify for early learning and child care spaces, and we have increased the threshold of the subsidy that we pay for preschoolers, for infants, as well as school-aged children -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, time for one brief question.

MS MICHAEL: This has to do with the economic benefits of child care.

In Quebec, the number of young mothers coming off welfare increased by 37 per cent since Quebec made significant investments in child care over the past ten years. By removing this barrier to employment, Quebec has also saved money by recovering 40 per cent of its child care costs in increased tax revenue.

Why would not the government continue investing much greater money in order to substantially increase child care spaces when there is such a clear economic benefit to the government for doing so?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anybody in this Province who can challenge our poverty reduction plans and the initiatives that we have laid out, including the Early Learning and Child Care Plan -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: - including removing balance billing for dental fees for children twelve and under, including increasing the allowance for people coming off social assistance and going into the workforce, including increasing the threshold for those people who are working, on low incomes, to receive drugs in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

I think we have done a great deal in this Province to reduce poverty and to make it easier for people to make the transition from social services to work.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Oral Questions has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to section 28.4(e) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling one Order- in-Council for the creation of one new subhead activity of expenditure for the 2006-2007 fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 26.5(a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling twelve Orders-in-Council relating to funding pre-commitments for the 2007-2008 to the 2014-2015 fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 28.4(e) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling six special warrants relating to the 2006-2007 fiscal year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: No money for plant workers? Don't put money into plant workers? Don't put money and don't employ people in Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This is the time for Tabling of Documents, not for engaging in debate.

Further Tabling of Documents?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

As the Speaker of the House of Assembly, I am pleased to table the 2005-2006 Annual Report for the Office of The Information and Privacy Commissioner for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Notices of Motion.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions relating to the Granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act, Bill 34.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act 2000, Bill 37.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Standing Order 63.(3), which deals with giving notice in respect to private members' motions, I would like to give notice of the following private member's motion which the Opposition will be debating on Wednesday coming. It is being advanced by the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, and the motion reads:

WHEREAS $15 million in taxpayers' money has been allocated for a project to bring two additional fibre optic cables to the Province in a deal which involves close personal friends and business associates of the Premier without a call for public tenders or a Request for Proposal; and

WHEREAS many significant concerns have been raised about the lack of analysis, the role of lobbyists, the disclosure of a benefits analysis, the exploration of other options, and the procedures followed in allocating this money; and

WHEREAS the government majority on the Public Accounts Committee did not support the Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee carrying out an investigation into this matter;

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly now call upon government to appoint an independent inquiry with broad and expansive terms of reference to immediately investigate all the details and circumstances of the fibre optic deal.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act. (Bill 35)

I further give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Conduct Of Public Inquiries. (Bill 40)

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Sale Of Certain Items At A Flea Market. (Bill 38)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Private Training Institutions Act. (Bill 44)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Establish A Health Research Ethics Authority For The Province. (Bill 23)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act. (Bill 33)

I also give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Vital Stats Act. (Bill 43)

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act No. 2. (Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Two more notices, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act And The City Of Mount Pearl Act. ( Bill 41)

And also, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Taxation Of Utilities And Cable Television Companies Act. (Bill 42)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition here from the Community of Ramea, and it says:

WHEREAS since1981 Ramea residents usually enjoy a very reliable passenger-automobile ferry service for connection to mainland Newfoundland. Residents depend on this regular scheduled service for medical appointments, delivery of food, fuel, building supplies et cetera, as well as attracting tourists to the community, especially during the summer months; and

WHEREAS in May of this year the regular ferry, M.V. Gallipoli was out of service for refit and was replaced by the M.V. Sound of Islay. This vessel has had mechanical problems for the whole period and thus has been providing a very much reduced, unreliable and inadequate service; and

WHEREAS the undersigned are not pleased with the low transportation service standards being imposed upon them; and

WHEREAS the undersigned understand that the regular ferry must be refitted, the undersigned request that the replacement vessel be capable of providing a service of the same standard that was being provided by the regular ferry; and

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to assure the residents of Ramea that they can depend on a standard ferry service at all times throughout the year, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I also would like to say at the beginning of this petition, that the person who was Chairperson of this particular Ramea committee, Chair of the transportation committee, is in Toronto as we speak for a double-lung transplant. We wish him all the best because he is really still working in the community and does a lot to bring the community issues to the front.

There is no doubt about it, as the petition here says, in 1981, with the Sound of Islay, it did provide a good service to the community of Ramea and still does. The people in the community understand that the boat has to go on refit, like it was this year for a number of weeks, but they did not get good service from the replacement vessel, the Sound of Islay. It was broken down a number of times. It was during the very busy schedule, the tourist season, when this particular thing happened. We had a number of calls from the community regarding that service. So I would hope that the minister would take this into consideration when he does the vessel replacement for the Province. Hopefully the people of Ramea and Grey River, who depend on this service as well, can look forward to a better service once their regular vessel, the Gallipoli, goes on refit for mechanical or otherwise refits during the different periods of the year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think this is the first petition I have ever had from seven year olds, but anyway, today I have a petition from the Grade 2 class from Woodland Primary in Grand Falls-Windsor. They are requesting that the name of the Mary March Museum be changed to the Demasduit Centre of the Founding Peoples.

Now, it is interesting how this came about. Apparently there was a cultural project in the classroom. The children started to do a bit of research and they discovered that our museum in Grand Falls-Windsor, called the Mary March Museum, came about because the Beothuk Indian Demasduit, who had been captured by European settlers in 1819 - when she was captured they called her an English name, Mary, and because she was captured in the month of March they added March as her surname. When the children did this project they thought to themselves: How unfair! If anybody were to change their names they would not like it, and they thought the proper thing to do would be to change the name of the museum so that the injustice could be corrected. So they asked their teacher about it, and they said: Well, maybe what we will do is we will start a petition. They started a petition, and today, Mr. Speaker, we have 885 signatures on that petition. It is interesting that one of the people to sign that petition was our own Gordon Pinsent. As we know, the Arts and Culture Centre in Grand Falls-Windsor has now been renamed the Gordon Pinsent Centre for the Arts. That change was made. When you look at the contribution that the Beothuks and other Aboriginals have made to Newfoundland and Labrador, it seems like the right thing to do.

You can always rely on children to tell the truth, and when children take it upon themselves to go ahead and see that a change is made and that an injustice is corrected, I think it is time for all of us to sit up and listen. I had no trouble signing this petition. Today, Mr. Speaker, I am presenting it to government to reconsider and take into account the facts and the evidence that have come forward, and come forward by children themselves. I think it would be in the best interest of this government to make that change as soon as possible so it will be an example that children's views are heard and decisions are made based on that evidence.

I congratulate Ms Anne Warr and her class, and I would hope that government would give this great consideration and that a change will be made in the coming months.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With reference to Orders of the Day, I spoke with the Opposition House Leader and, of course, with the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, to facilitate getting debate today where there are no bills on the Order Paper. So, with leave, I would like to do first reading. I spoke with both respective House Leaders and the Leader of the New Democratic Party. There are six bills, I circulated them in advance, and there are several others. I would like to give first reading so we can get them circulated and out today so we can be open for the debate tomorrow or whatever, the next day, whenever we move them on the order.

First of all, I would like to move first reading of Bill 23, An Act To Establish The Health Research Ethics Authority For The Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Government House Leader has asked for leave to proceed with this afternoon's agenda to give first reading to certain bills. Is there agreement?

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

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we certainly do give leave. We would like to see that the House is absolutely productive. We are certainly not here to waste any time, and whatever is required to keep the agenda moving forward and to have an open, full and frank debate, we would certainly be consensual to that.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair acknowledges that agreement has been reached and leave has been granted.

The Government House Leader has moved first reading of Bill 23. 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 Regarding The Health Research Ethics Authority For The Province Of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce the said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Establish A Health Research Ethics Authority For The Province," carried. (Bill 23)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill, Bill 23, An Act To Establish A Health Research Ethics Authority For The Province, shall now be read a first time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Establish A Health Research Ethics Authority For The Province. (Bill 23)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 23 has now been read a first time, when shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. SULLIVAN: Now, today.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

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

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I call first reading of Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 33.

It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act. (Bill 33)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act," carried. (Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said Bill 33 be now read a first time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act. (Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act, has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, Bill 33 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move first reading of Bill 34, An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the Minister of Municipal Affairs shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the Minister of Municipal Affairs shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act," carried. (Bill 34)

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act. (Bill 34)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 34, An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act, has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, Bill 34 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move first reading of bill 35, An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act. (Bill 35)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act," carried. ( Bill 35)

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 35, An Act To Amend the Notaries Public Act, has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, Bill 35 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move first reading of Bill 36, An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act No.2.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the Minister of Environment and Conservation shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act No. 2.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act No. 2," carried. (Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 36, An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act No. 2, be now read a first time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act No. 2. ( Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 36, An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act No 2. has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, Bill 36 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move first reading of Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Urban and Rural Planning Act, 2000.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000.

It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs shall have leave to introduce said bill?

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 Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000," carried. ( Bill 37)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000, be now read a first time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000. ( Bill 37)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000, has now been read a first time.

When shall this bill be read a second time?

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, Bill 37 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move first reading of Bill 38, An Act Respecting The Sale Of Certain Items At A Flea Market.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Sale Of Certain Items At A Flea Market. (Bill 38)

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting The Sale Of Certain Items At A Flea Market," carried. (Bill38)

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 38 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Sale Of Certain Items At A Flea Market. (Bill 38)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 38, An Act Respecting The Sale Of Certain Items At A Flea Market has now been read a first time.

When shall this bill be read a second time?

MR. SULLIVAN: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 38 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move first reading of Bill 40, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Conduct Of Public Inquiries.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Conduct Of Public Inquiries. (Bill 40)

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Conduct Of Public Inquires," carried. (Bill 40)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 40 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 40 be now read a first time?

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Conduct Of Public Inquiries. (Bill 40)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 40, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Conduct Of Public Inquiries, has now been read a first time.

When shall this bill be read a second time?

MR. SULLIVAN: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 40 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move first reading of Bill 41, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act And The City Of Mount Pearl Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act And The City Of Mount Pearl Act. (Bill 41)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act And The City Of Mount Pearl Act," carried. (Bill 41)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 41 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill 41 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act And The City Of Mount Pearl Act. (Bill 41)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 41, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act And The City Of Mount Pearl Act, has now been read a first time. When shall this bill be read a second time?

MR. SULLIVAN: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

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

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move first reading of Bill 42, An Act To Amend The Taxation of Utilities And Cable Television Companies Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Taxation Of Utilities And Cable Television Companies Act. (Bill 42)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs shall have leave to introduce the said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Taxation Of Utilities And Cable Television Companies Act," carried. (Bill 42)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 42 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill 42 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.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Taxation Of Utilities And Cable Television Companies Act. (Bill 42)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 42, An Act To Amend The Taxation Of Utilities And Cable Television Companies Act, has now been read a first time. When shall this bill be read a second time?

MR. SULLIVAN: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

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

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move first reading of Bill 43, An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act. (Bill 43)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act," carried. (Bill 43)

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion 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 carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act. (Bill 43)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 43, An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, has now been read a first time. When shall this bill be read a second time?

MR. SULLIVAN: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

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

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move first reading of Bill 44, An Act To Amend The Private Training Institutions Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Education shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Private Training Institutions Act. (Bill 44)

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that the hon. the Minister of Education shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Private Training Institutions Act," carried. (Bill 44)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 44, An Act To Amend The Private Training Institutions Act, be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill 44 be read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Private Training Institutions Act. (Bill 44)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 44, An Act To Amend The Private Training Institutions Act has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. SULLIVAN: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 44 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Opposition for their co-operation in getting these bills through first reading so we can get them circulated and every member can have a copy.

I would now like to, with leave, Mr. Speaker, move second reading of Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Unless otherwise noted, the Chair will assume that we do have leave to move through the various stages this afternoon, so we will not have to continue to ask leave. I do believe that has been granted.

The hon. the Government House Leader has moved second reading of Bill 33.

It is moved and seconded that Bill 33, 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 33)

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

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to Bill 33.

The elimination of the Real Estate Foundation is an unnecessary legislative requirement and provides no consumer protection. It was intended to provide funding to assist in education of real estate sales people but has not been effective for that purpose. This is unnecessary red tape for the real estate industry. Should the industry find it useful to establish such a foundation, it could do so on a voluntary basis. However, government should not mandate there be one.

With the elimination of the Foundation, real estate agents will be able to retain the interest on their trust accounts to go towards the cost of administering their trust account, including the cost of an audit. The annual audit provides significant consumer protection.

On windup of the Foundation, the act requires that any funds remaining in the Foundation will be paid to charities with similar objectives to the Foundation. This is being amended to provide for a payment to an organization which is charitable or beneficial to the community in order to provide more flexibility. This is a part of government's red tape reduction initiative and will result in the elimination of twenty-four regulatory requirements.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further debate at second reading?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Your Honour, I guess we are moving along here so fast - the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace left to use the washroom for a second, but he intended to respond here. Since we are all being so co-operative here today, we would like to request the right that he have an opportunity to do second reading. He left the room for personal reasons.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we will not rush it. I will just move on to another one and we can come back to second reading on that bill when the hon. member gets back.

I would like to move second reading of Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act.

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

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

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

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

I am very pleased this afternoon to introduce Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act. This bill allows the automatic revocation of an appointment as a notary public of a barrister and solicitor who is disbarred or suspended under the Law Society Act of 1999. Only those barristers and solicitors who are practicing pursuant to the Law Society Act of 1999 -

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands is nattering over there. I think someone should tell him to go drive the fire truck down in Humber Arm himself.

Only those barristers and solicitors who are practicing pursuant to the Law Society Act of 1999 and who are suspended or disbarred will be affected.

Mr. Speaker, both the public and the legal profession will benefit from this amendment, as it addresses the problem associated with suspended or disbarred lawyers who may be continuing to use their status as a notary public to attempt to perform the lawful duties as a barrister and solicitor, which could mislead members of the public and could undermine public confidence in the law profession.

The Law Society is responsible for governance and supervision of the legal profession. Its jurisdiction is confined by law to the investigation of the professional conduct of its members. This conduct is reviewed in accordance with the standards of ethical practice that are established by the Law Society Act of 1999, by the Law Society Rules and by the Code of Professional Conduct. Accordingly, no lawyer is disbarred or suspended without first being given the opportunity to be heard.

By linking the revocation of an appointment of a Notary Public, or an appointment as a notary public of a barrister and solicitor, there is certain disciplinary action taken by the Law Society pursuant to the Law Society Act of 1999. The principles of natural justice will prevail and government can be satisfied that an appropriate investigation is conducted and that the person who is complained about is given the opportunity to be heard and to make representation.

In practice, Mr. Speaker, the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador will provide the Justice Minister with official notice that a member has been disbarred or suspended pursuant to the Law Society Act. Upon receipt of this notice, the Minister of Justice is required to revoke the status of notary public pursuant to the act. Written notice is then provided to both the disbarred or suspended lawyer and the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador confirming that the status has, in fact, been revoked.

The primary concern in designing such a system for the automatic revocation of appointment of notary public is designing a system which meets with the duty and procedure of fairness owed to these individuals affected. In the present context these decision mean a person whose appointment has been revoked is entitled, at a minimum, to sufficient explanation from the decision-maker as to why the appointment has been revoked or suspended.

By linking the revocation of appointment as a notary public of a barrister and solicitor to certain disciplinary actions that are taken by the Law Society under their legislation, the Law Society Act, the principles of natural justice and the principles of fairness will prevail.

Prince Edward Island and this Province are the only two common law jurisdictions which do not have the legislative authority to automatically revoke the appointment of a notary public held by a barrister and a solicitor who is disbarred or suspended.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this change will be a positive one. Both the public and the legal profession will benefit from this amendment as it address the problems associated with suspended and disbarred lawyers continuing to use their status as notary public to attempt to perform, or maybe perform, the duties of a barrister and solicitor, and this could mislead the public and undermine public confidence in the law profession.

Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the amendment, Mr. Speaker. I would ask for the support of all hon. members in passing this bill, and I look forward to the discussion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words here in second reading of this bill, the Notaries Public Act, which is being amended. It is not uncommon, of course, we do it all the time here in the House. That is the whole purpose, this is the place where laws are made. When an act is made at one particular time it does not mean, of course, that circumstances will never change such that you will never have to amend it. In fact, it is pretty well contemplated in our system that you always will, at some point in time, be called upon to amend your legislation because circumstances change. It is a pretty broad opportunity here in second reading. We are not dealing with the specific details of the legislation, but it gives us an opportunity to listen to the minister who is introducing this - in this case it is the Minister of Justice and Attorney General - who tells us what the basic principle is involved here in this amendment, why he is bringing it forward, and what he contemplates that it will achieve.

I am surprised somewhat that we have not heard from the minister here a bit more explanation because, as I always say, Joe and Jean in the general public love to know what we are all about here. For example, what is a notary public versus a Justice of the Peace, versus a Commissioner of Oaths? I think it is incumbent upon the minister and us here as legislators to make sure that the general public know what these things are. I mean, the people out in the public might not know that a notary public is any better than a slice of bread or whatever, so it is incumbent upon you people. You just cannot keep people in the dark, as much as you would like to. As much as you would like, as a government, not to disclose information, as much, as a government, as you would like to look after your friends and not tell anybody what you did to do that, you cannot do that. You have to do it. You have to tell people what you are about, as much as you think that you can rule behind an iron curtain and in the dark.

In fact, I cannot wait until we get to the Standard Time legislation we have coming up here, because that is a good one. Anything that is going to give the public of this Province an extra couple of hours a day in the daylight so we can see and shine a light on what you people are doing is great news. I look forward to it. We need all the light we can to look at the actions of this government.

The member that covers the area of Clarenville over there asks maybe if I could explain the difference. Well, I don't mind, I will answer him. I will take it upon myself to explain to the hon. member what the difference is between a Justice of the Peace and what a notary public is, and what a Commissioner of Oaths is. Maybe your minister should have taken time in your caucus briefings to explain it to you so that you would not be incumbent upon me explaining it. That tells us something, too, because you people get told only what they want to tell you, and that has been pretty evident in the last three years. You only ever get told what a certain person wants you to know, and that is why we have to take these opportunities here to enlighten you. We have to enlighten you.

Now, just because we consent, by the way, to see that the business of the House gets moving here, that is a consensual thing, we agree with that, but it does not mean we have to agree with everything you put out there. We know that is how you operate, maybe, as a caucus, but that is not how we operate here. Once you step inside of these confines, you are outside of your caucus. We are not like Mr. Manning, who gets a silver bullet, or Ms Marshall, who gets the flick from Cabinet because she says something that your Premier does not agree with. We all get a chance here to voice our opinions.

Now, the basic understanding, as I have it, and I could be wrong - and I would appreciate it if the minister who is going to take another opportunity to explain these things will give us some detail in case I miss anything - it is my understanding that in this Province, for example, you get called to the Bar as a lawyer and it has always been an additional tag-on, you become a barrister and you become a solicitor. That is a process that you go as a result of an educational process of law school, you go through Bar exams and, at the end of the day, if you are successful, you get called to the Bar, there is a swearing-in ceremony and you are admitted as a barrister and a solicitor. You often see at the end of the lawyer's shingle that they hang out: Barrister, Solicitor and Notary Public. It has been a custom that lawyers are automatically given that, to my knowledge. Now, that does not mean that only lawyers can be notary publics, but traditionally all lawyers are notary publics, but it does not mean that they are the only ones who can be notary publics.

One of the basic elements of a notary public when it comes to the practice of law and witnessing documents, for example, has to do with whose authority can do what. For example, as a barrister, the Minister of Justice or anyone else who is a lawyer here, for example, myself included, the Premier, the Member for Lewisporte is a lawyer, for example, they can sign documents. If you are transferring a piece of land, for example, from A to B, they can witness the document and they say: Barrister, Newfoundland and Labrador. That is sufficient to be taken as sort of an affirmation of that person's oath that what they did makes it valid and it becomes registerable in this Province, but I, for example, cannot witness a document. If a friend of mine, for example, were selling their home in Ontario, my notary public status here lets me sign a document that is going to be registered in some other Province, but I cannot sign for John Doe who happens to be visiting from Ontario, decides that he is selling his home, witness it only as a barrister and have it be considered a valid document for registration back in Ontario. There is a reason why we have these notary publics, because most of the documents had to do with registration of documents outside of this jurisdiction.

Now, just so the education can continue here - and I noticed some of you are perking up an interest, and it is very interesting when people explain things to you. I noticed you people really perked up over there, and it is nice to see.

Now, I noticed in 5(1), which is being amended here - and I pose these questions now because it allows the minister an opportunity, when he comes back, to educate us again, to tell us what this is all about. For example, he says in section 5(1), that the minister, "...without assigning a reason for doing so, may revoke the appointment of a notary public." Now that is a pretty Draconian measure. I am wondering where that came from, and I am wondering what the reason is. Again, I know that is how this Administration operates. We do what we want and we tell you nothing and we do not give you a reason for doing it. But that is not the way society is supposed to work. We are suppose to live in a democracy, and if you are going to make laws and tell people what they can or cannot do, there is a reasonable expectation that you tell them why you are doing it.

Again, we had the very Minister of Justice and Attorney General of this Province, who is supposed to be the epitome of the democratic principles we live under, saying: I can withdraw your certification as a notary public and I do not even have to tell you why. I can revoke the appointment of a notary justice, no reason given.

I say to the Member for St. John's North: Read it. You obviously have not. It has nothing to do with whether it has been revoked or not. And the Member for Mount Pearl too. You people are so used to being led around by the nose that you do not even read your own legislation.

I pose the question - and I think it is a legitimate question and hopefully the minister will go off and come back with an explanation. He read his note that was prepared for him by somebody in the department so quickly, I do not even think he understood it himself. Now, that is one question I have with this thing.

The other question - we move on to subsection 2, Minister: "The appointment of a notary public who is a member of the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador is automatically revoked where the member is suspended or disbarred under the Law Society Act, 1999." One would think at first blush that is a pretty reasonable comment. You get it pretty well automatically because you are a lawyer, because you are a barrister, so therefore if you are no longer a barrister or solicitor, you would think: Well, it is pretty obvious, we are going to take back his notary. Again, it is not that simple. I just wonder what kind of thought went into this. Were there any consultations with the Law Society? Who brought this forward? I would like to read the submissions from the Law Society that came forward to the minister saying why they wanted this done. I would like to see the submissions and have the explanations.

The minister read his note so fast, and I would agree - I stand to be corrected on this one because he read it so fast that I just could not catch it all. That has something to do with my hearing and nothing to do with his facts. I appreciate it, but I would appreciate a further explanation as to his comments. When he talked about the Law Society I thought he said if the Law Society suspends or disbars you and you automatically end up being taken off the notary public roll, that the Law Society is then required to give the person an explanation why they were taken off. Now, I am pretty certain that is what I heard him say. Based on the assumption that is what he did say, I wonder why the distinction is being made in 5(1), that if the minister suspends him you do not have to give a reason but if the Law Society suspends him they have to give a reason. Why are we talking a double standard here? We are talking about the same Act. For example, a person is going to lose their notary public certificate, yet he says: I can do it. Don't ask me why. I am not giving you any reason if I do not feel like it. You are gone. You are off the roll, out the door. Yet if the Law Society decides they are going to take it back or whatever, they have to tell you. We just need some further clarification here.

The other thing I would point out here is, if we are going to be serious, because I have heard comments by the minister here that we would not want somebody exercising - I guess you could almost classify it as a quasi judicial type of function, depending on the significance of the documents that you are registering. You do not have to be a lawyer to be a notary public. You can apply for that. There are all kinds of them out there, notary publics who are not lawyers, but there is some significance to the fact that you are performing an official act that empowers somebody or helps somebody certify their title to their land, their registration abilities on a piece of property and so on. That is some pretty serious stuff. It gives you a lot of rights and privileges to be able to do that, but by the same token, if you look at the last section of the suggested amendment, it says: Even though we do not think you are fit to have it and even though I am going to suspend it without giving you a reason, if you continue - and by the way, all these notary publics, you get a seal. You take the paper and once you sign your name, you take a seal and you seal it. What we are saying here is, this is important enough to bring to this House to make a change. We do not think we have to tell you if the minister knocks you off the (inaudible), but we make everybody else explain it to you.

Even if you continue to flaunt the law and even if you continue, once this is passed, to act as a notary public and use that seal, look out, we are going to bring the full extent and force of the law down on you and you are going to pay a $100 fine. Whoop-de-do! Now, that is how serious this is. I think the fact that it is a $100 fine in and of itself - a fine not exceeding $100. What a joke! This is big enough to require all of us to come here and take the time and energies to discuss why we need to change it. It is important enough to give the minister specific powers to do it without telling anybody why he did it, which I absolutely disagree with. This is real cover of darkness stuff, that is, get at you and tell you nothing, take you nowhere, absolutely contrary to all the principles of democracy which require openness and transparency. Don't dare tamper.... Sure, if we pass this, I fear tomorrow - I mean, Minister Marshall is not beyond making a few digs at myself. I mean, he has done it. Yes, sure I could find out tomorrow that he can -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It has happened on two occasions. I remind the hon. the member that we should refer to members by their titles or by their district. On two occasions the hon. member - we are enjoying his presentation, but we ask him if he would abide by the rules.

MR. PARSONS: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I should not be referring to him, but I think everybody knows who I am talking about, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General who happens to hail personally from the West Coast of this Province and represents the great District of, I do believe, Humber East.

Now, back to my point. The Minister of Justice here, and Attorney General, you can call it by whatever name you like in terms of the title but the bottom line is, if this act is passed, the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General, if he were to take it upon himself - and we have had a few differences of opinion. He has been noted before publicly to say that I crossed the line. He said it publicly. With the passage of this act he can go out tomorrow, when this act is passed, and say: Kelvin Parsons, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile - me personally, Kelvin Parsons - shall no longer be a notary public. I can go to him and say: But, Minister, why? And he says: I don't have to tell you. I do not have to tell you.

Now, what kind of dictatorial, communionist society are we living in when the Minister of Justice and Attorney General can get to do that? Now, you be the judge of that. You be the judge of that.

Now, you talk about judges and fairness and crossing lines, why would anybody ever want to put themselves or the Minister of Justice and Attorney General in a position where they might ever be accused of that? God knows we have all kinds of accusations floating around now about people who do things for their buddies and their friends. God knows we would ever want an opportunity where it is suggested that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General might have done something because of any particular personal animosity.

I mean, let's not kid ourselves. We all know, for example, what? Fifteen years ago the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, in his private life, in practice, sued me on another reason. Yes, sued me twice in two levels of court in this Province, and lost both times I might add. So, the Minister of Justice has some history with myself. That has not gone unnoticed in the general public amongst the legal profession, so this is very important.

It is important not only to me as a legislator who stands up for the principles of democracy, but it is very important to me as a person who sees how I could be individually impacted by this. That is why this is so important. That is why it is so important, and that is why we have to look beyond the intent, at all times, of legislation. I cannot see it being any clearer than what he says here. "The Minister of Justice, without assigning a reason for doing so, may revoke the appointment of a notary public." What are we coming to?

I have just given some very clear examples of the type of thing that could happen, and I would not have a leg to stand on. There is not even a right of appeal in here. Not so bad if he could do it, I wouldn't have a problem if he could do it, but I don't even have a right of appeal. Now, where is the social justice, the judicial right, the democratic principle to protect oneself if he should - this gives him the arbitrary discriminatory right to remove it and not explain himself. There are certain principles of natural justice and fairness which make this, I would suggest, absolutely unenforceable and sustainable if it were questioned in any court of law.

More importantly than that - because I do not think that would ever stand up anyway. If anybody put it to the test, I really do not think 5.(1) is going to stand up. I really do not. I question the motivation for anybody who would do it and put it there without any limitations. That is what I question. We craft legislation and we bring it here and you always hear - I heard the same Minister of Justice up a couple of years ago talking about the honourable intent of openness and transparency under the Lobbyist Act. Well, we saw where that got us last week, in the last couple of months, didn't we, the Lobbyist Act? That is why it is so important to appreciate the spirit and intent of a piece of legislation. It is very disconcerting here to see what the spirit and intent of that particular section is. Somebody's life, somebody's financial and economic circumstances, somebody's ability to perform their job, can be negatively impacted simply because a person called the Minister of Justice in our Province can arbitrarily decide you are not going to be a notary public any more. That is unfair, and I would suggest that, albeit this is a minor matter in the sense of the big picture when we deal with legislation, this is one of hundreds of pieces of legislation we have in this Province, but it is ever so important when it tells about how careful we have to be in what we do here and that we can't treat something frivolous, and just the impacts that it might have we have to be cognizant of. I do truly believe that this little notary public amendment we have going on here is truly the hallmark of the actions of this administration, and I look forward to some of the explanations from the minister.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the Minister of Justice and Attorney General speaks now, he will close debate at second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

I would certainly like to point out, for the people who are watching this, who the hon. member refers to, I think, as Joe and Martha, that there is no intention here to be Draconian in any way. As I said in my remarks, the whole purpose of this amendment is to ensure that if any person is dismissed or has an appointment as a notary public that is revoked or suspended that that doesn't happen until such time as there is a process of natural justice.

With respect to lawyers, that process takes place with a disciplinary panel of the Law Society of Newfoundland. As I said earlier, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Province of Prince Edward Island are the only provinces that didn't have a provision that if a lawyer was disbarred or suspended the minister would have the authority to revoke the appointment as a notary public.

I just want to assure people that Section 1.5 of the act which the hon. member has referred to says that a minister may revoke. It doesn't say he must revoke, the minister may revoke the appointment. There would have to be, obviously, a very important reason for the minister to exercise that authority, to exercise the discretion to take that away.

Of course, the hon. member also asked the question: Who asked for this? It was the Law Society of Newfoundland that asked for this. He said: When did they first approach us? Well, he was the one who was first approached. The hon. member was the Minister of Justice when the first call came from the Law Society, because there was a lawyer who had been suspended or whose practice was taken by the Law Society and who was continuing to operate as a notary public.

The hon. member may not have picked up on this, but he talked about a notary public and here is what he said. He said: A notary public practicing law and witnessing documents. Now, I am sure that was obviously an error on his part, but that is what he said: Practicing law and witnessing documents. Of course, if a lawyer were to make a comment like that, what is the general public going to think? They are going to think that a notary public somehow has the authority to practice law, and if you have a lawyer who is not automatically a notary public - a lawyer has to apply to the Department of Justice to become a notary public, but if that lawyer is going to be disbarred, he is going to lose the right -

MR. PARSONS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not mind being questioned. In fact, I like to be educated when we are debating a subject that I am not clear on, because that is the other purpose I am here for, to learn. Unlike some people, I do not think I know everything and I like to be educated, but I certainly do not and will not accept again this minister trying to put his words in my mouth and misinterpreting what I said. I have had enough of it with him. He has done it on several occasions and here he is doing it again today. I, at no time -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: I, at no time, Mr. Speaker, made a comment here that you have to be a lawyer to be a notary public; no time. Now if the minister is not clear, because it is quite obvious he does not understand the distinction between notary public, J.P., Commissioner, and maybe even what a lawyer is supposed to do - that is debatable - but at least do not go putting words in my mouth just because he does not understand what I said.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

Mr. Speaker, what I said the hon. member said was, practicing law and witnessing documents. Now, I am sure he did not intend to say that, but he did say it. It is important that if lawyers were to make mistakes and say a thing like that, then certainly what are the members of the public going to think? That is why it is important that people who are notary publics, that people who under the Notaries Public Act, have only authority to witness documents; to witness documents that are used from outside of the jurisdiction of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what their authority is and that authority is completely different from those who practice law.

Mr. Speaker, the Law Society of Newfoundland have requested this because they want to make sure that if we are going to revoke a lawyer's appointment as a notary public, that not happen unless there is a process. There are the principles of natural justice. The lawyer has an opportunity to be heard, but after they go through that process with the Law Society, if the lawyer is disbarred and if the lawyer is suspended, the Minister of Justice will be notified and the Minister of Justice has the authority to revoke the appointment as a notary public. That is all this act does. It is a housekeeping piece of legislation. As I pointed out, of the thirteen jurisdictions in the country, only us and P.E.I. are the ones that do not have this authority, and that is the purpose of this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 35, An Act to Amend The Notaries Public Act, 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 Notaries Public Act." (Bill 35)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act, has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

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

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I could revert to Bill 33, The Real Estate Trading Act. The Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, I think, would like to speak on that bill.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace speaking on Bill 33, An Act to Amend The Real Estate Trading Act, at second reading.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I apologize for a few moments ago, I had a personal matter to attend to.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, as usual -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the members opposite are so entertained by my personal matters.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my commentary this afternoon on this bill, An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act. I am not surprised that the real estate topic came up during this session of the House, seeing as how we had 9,000 people last week and the week before trying to leave the Province; 9,000 people lining up on Kenmount Road.

Mr. Speaker, I know the members opposite are sensitive to that because a lot of them are constituents of theirs leaving, with their hands up in the air looking for a better life for them and their families. Mr. Speaker, with so much out-migration in this Province right now it is having a dire impact upon real estate values and property values in this Province. We are watching rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, people coming in and picking up bargains from other countries, from the United States and from other parts of the country, coming in buying summer homes. The sad part of that, Mr. Speaker, those homes, those summer homes now that are being grabbed at discount prices, they represent a lifetime of earnings and a lifetime of wishes and dreams for the people who had to abandon them to go away and try to feed their families.

Mr. Speaker, I know it is hard for the Member for Mount Pearl to understand the relevance of that. I know it is hard for him to understand that. I do not mind the member for Clarenville, whatever district he represents -

AN HON. MEMBER: Trinity.

MR. SWEENEY: Trinity North. I met a constituent of his at the job fair last Sunday, because I had an opportunity to go down out of curiosity. One of my constituents needed a ride into the job fair. I brought him in because he has been without employment for so long, the past two years, that I gave him a break and I brought him in. I wanted to experience first-hand and see first-hand what was happening. That particular day, that Sunday, was a slow day according to the recruiter. Only 3,500 people showed up. They did not have time - the recruiters with all their tables set up, did not have time to do any interviews. All they were doing were just taking resumes.

Mr. Speaker, it is little wonder that real estate has become a topic in this House. If I were the members from here, in the greater metropolitan area of the city, according to some of the numbers that I picked up, that the value of the permits in the city this year are down somewhere in value of about $40 million. That is a sad testimony for a government that has said it has turned the corner. Well, I will tell you, it has turned the corner that fast that it has run into its own back. That is how fast they turned the corner. They ran into their own back. Mr. Speaker, in doing so, they have run over the needs and wishes of the people of this Province. They have missed the boat.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get down to a couple of issues here in this, minister. Interest earned on money deposited in a trust account referred to in subsection (1) shall be the property of the agent. Mr. Speaker, there is no clarity here whether or not these funds were under protest; if there was some disagreement about whether or not those funds should even have been in the trust account first. There is no offering here of an explanation as to the reconciliation of those funds and how they would be finally released. Should they go to the agent or should they go to the person who is protesting it?

Mr. Speaker, it is fine and dandy to bring something like this in. I understand the government's haste to come forward with these bills, I guess these fluff bills, if you want to call them that. It raises an issue that we are looking at the real estate foundation being disbanded, becoming obsolete by July of 2007. It raises an issue: What is going to happen? What is going to take the place of that foundation?

Mr. Speaker, a section of the bill there revokes the board members, the chairperson and the board members of it, when the act is revoked, and all contracts or agreements related to it. My colleague there, the Opposition House Leader, got into an issue there about revoking, revoking notary publics in Bill 35. I cannot help but notice - and the government's vice-Chair of the Public Accounts Committee had his membership on the PAC revoked last week. So revocation, getting your position revoked, seems like the orders of the day for this government.

Mr. Speaker, many of these boards and foundations were set up for a reason, and that reason was to monitor and make sure that the public was being looked after. Without any explanation - what is going to take the place of all of this? - we are expected today to stand and vote on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, there is another issue here. Upon the dissolution of the foundation, the funds and property shall be distributed or disposed of to an organization in the Province, the undertaking of which is charitable or beneficial to the community.

Well, if the foundation is revoked and the membership on the foundation revoked, who then decides which charity? Who decides which charity? Who decides if it is beneficial to the community? It was only a few years ago that we had somebody going out from another foundation paying $100 for a hotdog, using some foundation money.

Mr. Speaker, due diligence must be exercised. What ramifications are there if the financial statement that is going to be published on July 31, 2007, if it is not suitable to the superintendent? What recourse does the superintendent have? What recourse does a person have, who may have some funds in that trust? What recourse will that person have, or persons, or business have dealing with a foundation that is no longer in existence?

Mr. Speaker, this government, in its actions, tends to be heavy-handed. It has a tendency, if you stand up and disagree, you are going to get squat down like a fly, and everybody else, government members opposite, toe the line. There is no outcry. There is no outcry.

We had an issue today, on National Child Day. Where members opposite clamoured three years ago or four years ago for changes to the Child Care Act and improvements in the child care of this Province - they were great advocates - now, three years later, now that we have crossed lovers' leap here, jumped over and where everybody over there has become in love with each other, having one great love-in, we don't disagree and we cannot smudge our lipstick on the leader. We cannot sully him at all. We cannot disagree.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: Oh, you would be surprised.

Madam Speaker, we have to have the ability, without just bringing in a piece of paper and saying this is the way it is going to be, we have to have the ability to be able to question the outcome of this before it impacts any of our people in this Province.

Madam Speaker, that is as far as I am going to go with this right now at this time. Maybe the minister will shed some light on some of the issues that I have raised.

Thank you.

MADAM SPEAKER (S. Osborne): The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

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

MS WHALEN: Thank you.

Madam Speaker, I just want to go back and answer the hon. member when he asked about this foundation. Actually, when we did the consultations there was no one objected to the elimination of this foundation. It was set up for the purpose to educate its members. That purpose, certainly, we found that was not happening and that every other profession pays for their own education. There is nothing stopping the real estate industry from setting up their own voluntary foundation. There are provisions that they can do that, but I do not think that this government needs to make this mandatory for the real estate industry. It is unnecessary regulation, and this government is committed to eliminating the unnecessary red tape that is here. It is twenty-four regulatory requirements that will be put to rest with the elimination of this foundation.

I also want to say that, with this foundation, the funds that are there now will be determined by the real estate industry, where they would go, and they would have similar objectives as the foundation. There is some flexibility there for that.

On that note, I would like to say that I would like to move second reading, Madam Speaker, on this bill.

Thank you very much.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act. (Bill 33)

MADAM 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?

MR. SULLIVAN: Now.

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 presently, by leave. (Bill 33)

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I now call Bill 34, An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act, for second reading.

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

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, this is legislation that I know has been anticipated for some while and, in fact, I know the legislation has been shared with my colleagues opposite and my critic, the hon. Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, will be speaking to this particular bill as well.

Madam Speaker, Bill 34 deals with changes that are being made to an act known as the Standard Time Act. It changes the period each year, Madam Speaker, commencing in 2007, when the Province will observe Newfoundland Daylight Time and provides regulatory authority for the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to make future changes to the time period prescribed by this amendment.

This bill provides that this coming March, daylight time in Newfoundland and Labrador will begin one minute after 12:00 a.m. of the second Sunday in March and end one minute after the first Sunday in November.

Madam Speaker, government recognizes the importance of trade with the United States, and the potential for time zone differences to impact on commerce generally. On October 8, 2005, U.S. President Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This act authorized a change in the time period annually designated as Daylight Saving Time in the U.S. Beginning in 2007, Daylight Saving Time in the United States will begin on the second Sunday in March and end on the first Sunday in November, effectively increasing the time period by one month. The Secretary of Energy will report the impact of this change to Congress. Congress retains the right to revert daylight saving time back to the 2005 schedule once the Department of Energy study is complete.

In Canada, Madam Speaker, responsibility for changes to standard time rests with each province and each territory. In Newfoundland and Labrador the Standard Time Act regulates the period of time in which Newfoundland daylight time is observed, specifically between one minute after 12:00 a.m. of the first Sunday in April and one minute after 12:00 a.m. of the last Sunday in October.

Madam Speaker, this Province plans to follow the United States and the vast majority of other Canadian jurisdictions in this change for an additional four weeks of daylight saving time. It is felt that this change will have benefits to the environment by adding additional daylight hours to a typical working day thereby resulting in less energy consumption.

This is not a change this government has taken lightly. There have been consultations with various stakeholder groups as to the potential impact that this expansion of daylight saving time would have on our Province. Some groups, particularly those involved in trade or commerce, were anxious for the Province to make a determination on daylight saving time as quickly as possible. The Province has received communications from several industry and business representatives expressing support for remaining consistent with the United States time period in the interest of cross border transactions. All of the communications received express concerns about the impact on business if our Province does not conform to the United States.

Madam Speaker, the Premier and my Cabinet colleague, Minister Jack Byrne, have always been clear that while we were giving this matter the careful consideration and due diligence it required Newfoundland and Labrador would in all likelihood be moving in lockstep with the rest of Canada on the proposed changes to daylight saving time.

Madam Speaker, it is also important to note that because these planned changes to daylight saving time initiated by the United States are being done on a trial basis so that this change may well be temporary, this legislation prepares for that possibility by providing the Lieutenant Governor in Council a regulatory authority to make whatever future changes to this time period may be necessary.

Madam Speaker, with those few comments I am pleased to speak to Bill 34 at second reading, and I know by colleague opposite, the critic, wishes to make a few comments as well.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

When I saw this here, I thought about Marshall McLuhan when he said: We live in a global village. It is exactly what it is when we have essentially here something that happens in the U.S. making a necessary change, not only in that country but within provinces of Canada as well. Personally, for me, I am glad that it is happening. I like more daylight, and I think all of us do.

In the spring of the year when March comes around and the evenings get a little bit longer we can do more activities out around. I think that even though, as the minister said, it might be for a trial period, I think that the majority of people would hope that it would be a permanent thing. Also, when the time goes back in the afternoon or in the fall of the year, like it is now, and you travel outside like I do - I travel a lot of times leaving here in the dark and getting home in the dark. If you leave at 4 o'clock in the afternoon and get home by ten at night, then it is total darkness. Whereas in the summer you leave at four, you are back at 10 o'clock and it is hardly dark. So, I think people like that. The other thing that I think is important with this here is it will have an impact on electricity and rates, the energy and so on that people would use in their homes. I think this is also a particular reason why the President of the United States did that.

I would think, as the minister has already said, that using - even though he said we did not take it lightly, the fact is there was a lot of thought and so on gone into this particular proposed legislation. I will use another phrase, forced food is no one's choice. If the U.S. decides to do it and the rest of Canada, then I guess we should fall in line to make it easier for those who do commerce in our Province and has a lot to gain by being in synchronization with the largest market that we trade with in the United States.

So, there is not a lot to say on that. Basically, I am in agreement with the change. I think it is a good idea and I do not think there are too many people in the Province who would be up in arms and protesting on the steps of the Confederation Building tomorrow morning because we are going to do that. I think it is one that a lot of people would adhere to and would welcome as particular changes are made in the Standard Times Act.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

This is a strange one, you know. I probably will vote for it but I have to say that I do so unwillingly. To not vote for it would be a bit like the tail wagging the dog because we have the U.S. and we have other provinces who are going with this. But, you know, I am a person who really does believe in nature and in the natural order of things and at this point we are going to be eight months of the year going against nature, going against the natural time zone, and it really makes me feel uneasy. I think that there are many reasons for not doing it, but, as I said, I just felt I had to get up and say what I really think about it. I really hate the thought that our daily lives are affected because of the business world, that businesspeople are making this happen. It is fine to say we are a global village but, you know, we have difference within that global village. I think it is really sad that at this point in time we cannot allow ourselves to have those differences. Businesses already have to deal with time zones, and time zones that are quite varying. So what if they have to deal with the daylight savings time not happening at the same time in every place.

I just want to register my dismay that the lives of people, on a daily basis, are being affected by business concerns again. It happens way too often, that business concerns make decisions for us and that is what I see happening in this case. In this instance, I have to say that it galls me even more when it is major business concerns in the United States that are probably dictating it as well. I am not sure that it is good for everybody. I know that daylight savings time has always been an issue for farmers. That is why Saskatchewan does not go along with daylight savings time and they are still not going to go along with it because they just do not do it. Our daily lives in this country and in this Province are affected by this decision. As I said, I guess it will be a case of the tail wagging the dog if we do not do it. So, I will be voting for it but I will be forced to vote for it because I feel I have no choice.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few comments about this Bill 34, which is An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act. It is somewhat scary when the first words you read in the amendment says: During the period in each year the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may regulate the time. We know they keep us in the dark here quite a bit and I am just scared they might say we are going to be in the dark twenty-four hours a day. That is really, really scary. Hopefully here, and as I understand it, the intent of this thing here is to, in fact, give us a bit more daylight, and I am pleased to see that is something that this Administration cannot tamper with. We are basically dealing with daylight and anything that would shed more light on the activities of this Administration will certainly be welcomed by the people of this Province.

Now we will probably, and I have no doubt, vote in support of this amendment, but like the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I am dismayed as well as to how this came about. Talk about the tail wagging the dog, well this is a case, I do believe, where the dog has once again sat on us or did what you know dogs do to poles. The absolute, dictatorial attitude of the United States of America. I mean it must gall every single person in this room and anybody who believes in democracy about how we are so quick to react to the United States.

Does anyone remember years ago the debate we had about the metric system versus the imperial system? No way. We, in Canada, went through great expense from a cost point of view, an educational point of view of changing, so that like Europe, we, in Canada, that part of North America might be instep with the world when it came to measurements. They were too imperialistic the United States were. Oh, no, we are going to keep our imperial system. Probably the only thing they ever got from Britain that they wanted to keep. Sure enough, lo and behold, the great United States of America said: We don't want it and we're not going to do it. To this day, they still refuse to adopt the metric system.

But times they are a changing, says Bob Dylan. Sure enough, here we are now where the price of a barrel of oil has gone through the roof, and the United States says: My God, we can't keep our homes warm as we'd like to. We cannot fuel our industry like we used to because it cost too much. Therefore, we have to find a solution so that we do not have to burn as much energy. So what do they say? We will change the clock; a simple solution. We will change the clock so there is more daylight. Again, it is okay now because it suits their purposes. It suits the United States on their energy plan. We, and all of Canada, are being told the United States are doing it so we have to stay instep.

Now, that brings me to the issue of the energy plan. As we know - I mean, we have been waiting for an energy plan from this Administration for quite some time. I do not know what happens if the guys at Hydro I guess, or some of the personnel who are involved with Hydro have been spending so much of their time instead dealing with fibre deals that they have not had a chance to get the energy plan finalized, but hopefully that will come to an end and Mr. MacDonald will be able to spend more time on the energy plan, in helping out, and give it to the Premier, than we do on fibre plans. Hopefully so, because the United States, you will notice, when they wanted to get their energy plan in order, including the time change, it was done. Even us here now are going to jump to do it. The first possible opportunity that our House of Assembly was open, we jump to do it because the United States says we have to do it. By God, this government doesn't jump so quick on anything else. They are not so quick to reveal documents. They are not so quick to be open and transparent about fibre deals, but here we are, the United States says we want it, you give it to us. Very telling, I think, very telling.

Again, I am dismayed in a number of reasons. This government, in terms of priorities, got its priorities totally, I believe, mixed up. When the people of this Province want some information that impacts their lives, or will impact them - for example, I mean, there are 15 million good reasons why information should be revealed on the fibre optic deal; but, instead of shedding light on that, all this government can do is bring in an amendment to change the time act.

We will probably agree to it - no doubt we will - but again it shows the mixed-up priorities of this government, Madam Speaker, and it shows again that we are just, in this case, I do believe, marching to the drum of big brother Sam as opposed to what we feel we want to do and what is right for us. Hopefully that long-awaited energy plan that we are going to see, I am assuming we are going to see it some time between now and next October, because a lot of things on the agenda of this Administration, whoa! I tell you, they are pretty apt to say we are going to do this, and we are going to commit to this, but the minute, of course, they feel, well, we do not want to do this, or for some reason we cannot do this, or we have priorities with our money - for example, we are going to put $15 million into a fibre optic deal rather than put our money into the long-term care facility in Corner Brook this year.... By the way, that is a fact. That is going to be a fact. The long-term care facility, I would say, in Corner Brook will not go ahead this year. They will not spend the money. They probably will not spend the money because they had to take the $15 million and put it over onto fibre optics. Lo and behold, that will show your priorities.

Anyway, I will vote for this. I will hold my nose. I have been holding my nose a lot in the last couple of weeks because there is some smell around this Province when it comes to deals. Anyway, we will hold our nose and vote for this.

Thank you.

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

MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to rise to say a few words on Bill 34 today. Madam Speaker, I am not going to talk too much about the pros and cons of this in terms of keeping in line with other provinces and other countries. I think that is important, and it makes sense to do that, but I do have one concern that I would like to point out to government and I do not think it is one that they have paid much attention to in the drafting of this legislation but I would certainly hope that the minister and government would take it upon themselves to talk to school board officials in Labrador; because, Madam Speaker, the last time that we had Daylight Savings Time, or Double Daylight Savings Time, a number of years ago, I can remember then, when my kids were going to school, at the bus stop in the morning in October with flashlights, pure darkness. That was definitely, Madam Speaker, a huge safety issue for parents to have to deal with sending their kids to school in the dark.

Like I say, I do not know if government has talked about this, or paid any attention to it, but I certainly hope that they will. I am not suggesting at this point in time that there be a change in the school hours or things of that nature to accommodate this, but I think that it is worthy of discussion with school board officials and the parents in northern areas of this Province, like Labrador, where darkness comes early in the winter and stays long.

That is an issue that I think government has to undertake to try and address, because I do not think it is acceptable, Madam Speaker, to anyone to have children going to a bus stop with a flashlight to go to school in the mornings.

Thank you.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

If the minister speaks now he will close debate.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I thank members opposite for their timely comments and important comments, I believe, because it adds to the thrust of this particular bill and, of course, it is important because, as I believe the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile indicated, we are making a change that will now have us in sync with other jurisdictions in the continent, so it is obviously an important piece of legislation from that point of view.

I thank members opposite for their comments. The Member for Labrador West raises an issue that I think is worthy of some thought, but in the totality, I guess, in the entire context, it is going to be difficult, it would seem to me, from the point of view of why we are doing this legislation, and to be consistent with so many other jurisdictions in our country and with our neighbours to the south, it would seem to me that it would be difficult to alter what is being anticipated by this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I thank members opposite and I now move second reading of Bill 34, An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act. ( Bill 34)

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

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently, today.

MADAM SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 34)

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I call Bill 36, An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act No. 2.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise today, as Minister of Environment and Conservation, to introduce a bill which is entitled, An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act No. 2.

The proposed changes to the Environmental Protection Act are designed to allow for ticketing of offences under the act. In addition, the act will provide for the establishment of penalties for these offences that would be established by regulation.

Offences against the provincial environmental legislation must now be followed up by the laying of charges against a person or the entity causing the offence to occur. This can take considerable time and effort, as well as increase the burden on the provincial justice system.

The current regulations set out by the act provide the department with the authority to ensure protection of the environment; however, an enabling amendment to establish a ticketing system for minor infractions will allow the department officials to respond to an incident or situation whereby there is strong evidence that an offence has occurred.

The amendment provides for the ability to establish penalties for offences under the act and its various regulations. The intent is to set fines at a level that would be considered to be significant enough to deter potential offenders from committing an offence. A ticketing system will be put in place to deal with minor infractions of the pesticide control regulations, as an example, and this will certainly be extended to other jurisdictions.

These infractions, which may be considered to be minor, have the potential to cause harm to the environment and individuals handling things such as pesticide or to bystanders. Other examples of minor ticketing offences include illegal dumping or car wrecks, whereas major ticketing would include offences like the illegal use of pesticides or the spraying of pesticides in high winds outside of the regulations.

Madam Speaker, these measures will assist my staff in doing their job, which is to protect the environment. I would ask, therefore, the support of all hon. colleagues in passing this amendment to the Environmental Protection Act.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Right now, if some person is accused of doing this sort of thing or causing environmental damage, it has to go through the courts. If I understood the minister, right now the people within the department will be able to issue tickets on the spot. I guess, if you look at it in terms of motor registration and motor vehicles, if I am caught on the highway and an RCMP officer comes up and says, you were speeding, I have thirty days or so that I can appear in court and I can defend myself. I guess the question I have for the minister right now: If somebody is accused of dumping a car wreck - it may not be the person who owned the car originally who owns the car wreck, or the car wreck could be in somebody else's name - the person who gets the ticket, will they have that opportunity to be able to go and defend themselves? What process will there be to be able to defend yourself?

I agree with cleaning up our environment, I have no problem whatsoever, but you also have to make sure - because we just saw this afternoon that this government seems to be in the mood to take rights away from individuals. I mean, you are innocent until proven guilty, and there has to be a way that the person can defend themselves. You just cannot go out and say that the person is guilty of damaging our environment. If that was the case, then this government would be accused of its own regulations in terms of - I wonder sometimes if the same rules apply to government agencies as they do to individuals.

I noticed a while back, I think it was last year when I was driving around the Trans-Canada Highway, we have contractors out there now who are crushing pavement for the rutting in the road. That is good. I have no problem with that whatsoever. I remember driving along by Thorburn Lake, one of the most picturesque parts of our Province, a beautiful, beautiful countryside, beautiful rivers and streams all around. When I was passing by, I saw the shoot going right out over the shoulder of the road into the brook, and that brook runs into the Southwest River in Port Blandford. Anyway, I turned around and went back. I went further down, away from where the asphalt was being spilled out into the brook, and when I went down to the brook the brook was full of all kinds of - it looked like someone had just done an oil spill in the brook. I mean, this is running into a salmon river.

I do not know if there are any regulations that affect government agencies. If I was working with the Department of Environment I would have issued a fine, I guess, to the construction company and to the Department of Works, Services and Transportation that authorized this particular thing. We are doing more and more of it on the Trans-Canada, I notice. They are just taking the crushed asphalt, dumping it on the shoulder of the road and going into the ditches. In other jurisdictions I know what they do, they take it, they load it aboard a truck and they use it as part of their recycling. They put back the crushed as part of the paving project. We here seem to be dumping it on the side of the road. I am sure that if an individual went out and did their own driveway that way, went out and dumped that somewhere on the side of the road, that person would be fined. I would like for the minister to look at some of these things and see if the government agencies have to follow the same laws as the individual. We see, of course, that this government is really into trying to get money. The more money you can get the more penalties you can issue. We saw them increase motor registration, death certificates and birth certificates. Now we have another case where they are going to get more money.

I agree, we should get out there and clean up the environment. I guess I would like to see this minister - I know he is a very competent individual. He will probably do some work to clean up our environment, not like the other minister who we had previously. We have thousands and thousands of tires stocked in Bull Arm, and what damage has that been causing to the environment. This government has been around for three years now. They had all the answers to the tire recycling. They were going to solve the problem within two or three days after they got elected. Right now, we have that $500 million site in Bull Arm and we have it as a place to store tires. The Bull Arm site has become a garbage dump for used tires.

There are a lot of questions that need to be asked, but the one I want to ask the minister right now, in the second reading of this bill, is that: If a person is fined, if the Bull Arm Site Corporation is fined for storing these tires, will they be able to go to court?

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation. When the minister speaks now he will close debate.

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I guess I can start by saying that I am very pleased that the Member for Bellevue recognizes some of the work that we are doing on the highways in terms of paving, because I am certain, like he said, we are filling in the ruts. I tell you, I drove from here to Gander the other day and I was almost tempted to call somebody and say, boys, there is one bump in the road just the other side of Clarenville that we need to fix, because the drive was so smooth. I mean, I leave here now and drive from St. John's to my district and there are a few places that we have to do some work, but I can tell you one thing - and I hope the member opposite acknowledges - that the roads in our Province now are in a condition second to none, that have been there for the last fifteen or twenty years.

I should probably give him a little update on the tire situation as well. Right now - what was it? - the 450,000 or something tires that were over in Stephenville, they are all gone. I say to him just to keep an ear to the communication lines because he will probably be hearing something in that regard very shortly.

In reference to a couple of the points that he made in terms of the process whereby ticketing will happen and what opportunity people will have to respond, it will be no different than what happens on the highways. I am hoping I can have his attention a little longer, just to say to him about the ticketing procedure. If an RCMP officer stops me on the highway, just as you have said, you have the right to appeal that. In this case here, this would be no different.

What this amendment will in effect do is allow the Act to establish regulations and offences. The bottom line here is that right now the process is, you know, someone gets charged and it can be a very lengthy process, it has to go to the courts. We know how busy the courts are and getting things through the court system is a lengthy process. This will expedite and give department officials more opportunity to check the environment. I do not think anybody here would argue that we want to make the environment as safe as we possibly can, and this amendment will allow us to do this.

With that, Madam Speaker, I move second reading.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

The bill is carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act No. 2." (Bill 36)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act No. 2, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 36)

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I now call Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am pleased to rise just for a few moments to introduce Bill 37 on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

This bill, Madam Speaker, allows for interim development regulations made under the Act to apply where necessary to only part of a prescribed planning area. In this particular case, we are talking about the Humber Valley regional plan. I know that my colleague, the member opposite, the critic, and also the Member for Humber Valley are familiar with Bill 37.

The area is encompassed by the Humber Valley regional plan. It includes municipalities, local service districts and unincorporated areas in the Deer Lake to Corner Brook corridor. Currently, Madam Speaker, government is in the process of developing a comprehensive regional plan to guide development and land use that will serve as a blueprint for future growth. This is a measure by government to ensure that the best interests of the Humber Valley are considered when new developments are being discussed.

The Humber Valley regional plan will determine a framework for development and reflect a number of provincial interests. These include directing new developmental locations that are in the best interest of the entire region, establishing, Madam Speaker, urban limits, setting out major transportation initiatives, establishing parameters for regional infrastructure, protecting existing and future water supply areas, natural resources, tourism and reserving routes of proposed additions to the road system.

Madam Speaker, this bill is in no way intended to stifle development but rather to ensure that any further development is done in a coordinated and properly regulated and systematic manner. This planning initiative will also ensure adequate protection of the environment and wildlife in the region and will safeguard archeological and tourism potential. All of the municipalities encompassed by this regional plan have their own municipal land use plans in action and development regulations that allow them to control development within their respective jurisdictions.

However - and I guess this is the key point, Madam Speaker - there are currently no development controls within the local service districts and unincorporated areas encompassed by the regional plan. It is within these area that the most significant development activity is occurring.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, this amendment to the Urban and Rural Planning Act, 2000, will allow the interim development regulations that will be implemented for the Humber Valley planning area to apply only in the local service districts and unincorporated areas. This will provide a means to control development activity in these particular areas without impacting upon the current ability and authority of the municipalities involved to control development within their respective jurisdictions.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I now invite my colleague, the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, to make some comments.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I might just look around for the other speakers here because I spoke positive of it last time and they were negative of it. I do not want to be in the outs with them.

Being serious though, I talked to the minister earlier today, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and also the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I know exactly where they are going here. It is putting a regional plan in the Humber Valley area, somewhat similar to what you would have on the Northeast Avalon. That particular region would encompass - which has already been said by the minister in second reading, the towns would have representatives on this board.

It is my understanding that the Mayor of Pasadena has been nominated by that particular town and the Mayor of Deer Lake, Mayor Kelly, has also been nominated by the Town of Deer Lake to sit on this particular board as well. It is very important, as the minister pointed out. There is a lot of development within Humber Valley and all of the - like the City of Corner Brook and the other municipals, they do have their own plans but incorporated in that area - if you have a local service district and some unincorporated areas and they do not have plans of their own, this is where this particular board would look after the development of that particular area in conjunction with government.

So, I think it is positive in that sense. It is my understanding that the City of Corner Brook has some concerns about the cost of the regional board, but I am sure that the city, working with government, will be able to find a solution to that. Hopefully, as I said, that the comprehension of the regional planning board in Humber Valley will make sure that the development that occurs there does in an orderly way and the municipalities that make up that area, even though the development would be just outside of their own boundaries, but they would have a say in how that development takes place to safeguard their own communities and the boundaries that are set there now.

Madam Speaker, that is about all I have to say. The thing is that the municipalities themselves have agreed with that. Once the municipalities have agreed with it and the City of Corner Brook has agreed with it, with some reservations, then obviously that is what these people want and the communities want. If they want it, then obviously they have talked to government about it and government, at this particular time, is making this change to the legislation. That is inline, as I said, with what the communities want. Hopefully down the road we will see fruits of this particular regional board in the Humber Valley doing good things for that particular region of the Province.

Thank you.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I thank my colleague opposite, who is a former minister of provincial affairs. When he says that he understands why this is being done, I can truly appreciate his endorsement and his support because he dealt with this issue for a considerable period of time in a former Administration. So I thank the member opposite for his comments. I think it will be felt, Madam Speaker, that this is being done to ensure that the interests of those communities in the Humber Valley area are protected when, in fact, regional governments, government generally, wishes to move forward to enhance the social setting and municipal setting and municipal infrastructure for that region of the Province.

So with those few comments, Madam Speaker, I will now move second reading of Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000. (Bill 37)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Later today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 37)

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I now move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House to consider a number of bills that we gave second reading to today.

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

Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I now call Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act.

CHAIR: The Committee is ready to hear debate on Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2, 3 and 4.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2, 3 and 4 inclusive, carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2, 3 and 4 are 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'.

The enacting clause is 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'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 33 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I now call Bill 34, An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act.

CHAIR: Bill 34, An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 34, An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 34 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I now call Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000.

CHAIR: Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 37 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I now call Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act.

CHAIR: Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I had asked the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, who is responsible for this act, if I might have a copy of the background documentation that he relied upon in order to prepare this amendment, and he undertook that he would get it to me. So I am assuming, second reading being general commentary on where you stand in principle, in principle I have indicated I was against the amendment but I gave the benefit to the minister and said I would like to have a copy of the background, which he agreed to give me, which I have not received. So, I think, in fairness to all of us here, I would like to make an informed decision and I do not have that information to be in a position, at this point in Committee, to address the issues which I raised with him, and I certainly have not had an opportunity to read the submissions that the Law Society made to the minister, upon which he drafted the amendments.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes, Mr. Chair, the hon. Member for Burgeo & LaPoile did, in fact, ask me if he could have the background, the letters, the correspondence from the Law Society outlining their reasons for seeking the revocation of the appointment of notary public for certain members of the Bar, the lawyers who had been suspended or disbarred. The officials in the Department of Justice are now looking to see if they can release that information given the fact that there are certain names involved in the correspondence which may, under the (inaudible) legislation, so the officials are looking at that now.

Is that satisfactory to the hon. member?

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Again, Mr. Chair, I have no objection to blacking out the information of any third party that is referenced in the documentation. I think it is the principle that we want to get at here, why this was necessary. We do not need the details of who was disciplined or suspended by the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador, but I do request the benefit of seeing the submissions by the Law Society and having a reasonable opportunity to review same to be in a position to comment on this piece of legislation.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Again, can I have some kind of response back from the minister? Are we going to wait before we put this through Committee to allow me an opportunity to get that information?

I have asked the minister a question. Again, I think, in fairness, I deserve an answer. I have asked it twice now. This is the third time. Will I, or will I not, be given a copy of the information that the minister undertook to provide to me before we discuss this in Committee?

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Chairman, the correspondence that the hon. member is seeking, on the condition that information may be personal, and the removal of the names, we will undertake to provide the documentation with that information deleted.

I trust that is satisfactory to the hon. member?

MR. PARSONS: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

With that, what we could do is recall this in Committee stage tomorrow and we could wait until then. Then we could move forward when they have ample opportunity to take a look at that.

With that, then, Mr. Chairperson, I would call - if we are going to defer this and I will call it later - I would move to the Environmental Protection Act No. 2.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I guess the Government House Leader must mean Bill 36.

MR. SULLIVAN: Bill 36.

CHAIR: Bill 36, An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act No 2.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 2 is 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'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act No. 2.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 36, An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act No 2, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 36 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I now move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 33, Bill 34, Bill 36 and Bill 37 carried without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report a number of bills passed without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

MR. SULLIVAN: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bills be read a third time?

MR. SULLIVAN: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call for third reading now of Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 33 be now read a third time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act". (Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act, has now been read a third time, and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 33)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now call for third reading of Bill 34, An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 34 be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 34, An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act." (Bill 34)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 34, An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act, has now been read a third time, and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 34)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now call Bill 36, An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act No. 2.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 36, An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act No. 2, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill 36 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act No. 2." (Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 36, An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act No. 2, has now been read a third time, and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act No. 2, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 36)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now call Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000, Bill 37.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Urban and Rural Planning Act, 2000, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 37 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000." (Bill 37)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000, has now been read a third time, and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 37)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call Bill 23 for second reading, An Act To Establish A Health Research Ethics Authority For The Province. I might add, Mr. Speaker, this will be the last bill, I think. With the co-operation of the Opposition we have been able to move bills through the different stages here, and that will be the last one I will be calling on second reading today.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 23, An Act To Establish A Health Research Ethics Authority For The Province, be now read a second time.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, just to give second reading on this particular bill - I think the bill is welcomed by all members of the House, I hope. I know I just met with the Leader of the NDP, and, in fact, I will state for the record today, based on the meeting I had with the NDP Leader, there will be a couple of amendments coming to this bill that I have accepted. I think we had a very productive meeting, I say to the Leader of the NDP, on this particular bill this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, the goal of this particular bill essentially is to ensure that ethics are done on a local basis but based on national standards to protect citizens of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador from exposure to potentially unethical research and to ensure that the privacy rights and integrity of citizens is respected.

While there is a human investigations committee that does some ethical research now through Memorial University, it is primarily done on the projects that go through Memorial University, and private research projects that are currently undertaken in the Province, Mr. Speaker, are not subject to ethical standards the same as the projects that go through Memorial University. Currently, they are not capturing those particular projects and this bill will ensure that any research projects that are carried out in the Province now undergo ethical review.

Mr. Speaker, in light of increasing commercialization of health research, particularly genetic research in the Province, the need for ethical review of all research projects involving human subjects is paramount, and that is essentially what this bill sets out to do.

There was the Skanes report that was done in 2000, Mr. Speaker, and the reason for the Skanes report was primarily because of a number of research projects and data that was collected using human subjects without following the appropriate ethical proceedings. As a result of the Skanes report they did recommend this particular legislation. They did recommend that we identify ownership of DNA, personal health information, the privacy of individual involved as participants, and recommended the establishment of the HREA, which is what we are doing here today.

Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, will be the first province in Canada to have such ethical review, research and accountability. Of that I am particularly proud. Part of government's commitment is that of accountability and transparency. This act will also ensure that the act stipulates the appointment of a departmental and lay representative to the HREA, a ministerial appointment of an advisory committee, requirements for approval of an annual budget, annual reporting requirements and the requirement of annual financial audits.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to support this very important piece of legislation. Again, I thank the Leader of the NDP for her thoughtful input into this legislation at our meeting this afternoon.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this bill. As the minister indicated, I do have a special concern with regard to the bill. Before getting into the bill, I would like to beg your indulgence while I just speak for a few minutes about how I got here today.

As we know, this is my first day in the House, and so far I am very pleased with how the day has gone. I am also very aware, as the newest member of the House of Assembly, of the privilege that is mine, to have been chosen by the people of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, that this is not something I deserve or something that comes to me by right, this is something that has been laid on me by them and something I have to work to keep. I am aware of that privilege that we all have as we are elected. I am also aware of the responsibility that comes with that privilege because my responsibility is to the people of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. They are my first responsibility. They are the ones who have put their faith in me, and I really want to thank them formally here in the House today for having done that.

They have shown me that they have confidence in me, they have confidence in my Party, and I really appreciate that confidence. It also means that I have a lot to live up to. They told me on the doorstep, for three weeks during the campaign and anytime I met with them prior to the campaign, that they had great expectations and I know that I have to live up to great expectations of the people of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and all of the people of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, not just the ones who voted for me but all of the constituents. I want them to know that I really recognize that.

They have shown that they understand the need for the voice that I bring to the House. I want to speak to that for a minute, because I think the experience that I have as a person who has worked in community for all of my formal career, for all of my life as an adult, who has worked with people in community, who has worked side by side with them, has advocated for them, has helped them find their voice with government and with every other agency in our society, gives me a perspective that I hope I can bring to the House that will enrich the House. The thing that motivates me, and has always motivated me and will continue to motivate me, is the voice of the people, the people who I am part of, the people who make up our society, the people of this Province.

Of course, the voice that motivates me even more is the voice of those who do not get equal access in our society, who do not get equal access of the resources and of the goods in our society, and I bring that to this House. I do not think I am only one who brings it, but I hope that I can add to that as we deliberate and as we make decisions in the House for the good of the people in this Province.

I will not speak too much more about that, but one of the things in my district - and I think anybody who knows the district will agree with me - which really makes it a bit different from other urban districts in particular is the notion of community, because my district it is made up of communities. I have people in the Battery saying to me: We are left out. Our name is not in the name of the district. I sat down one night with a few of the men down in the Battery and said to them: Well, what are we going to do? Are we going to put Battery in there? Are we also going to put Virginia Park in there? Are we also going to put Pleasantville in there? Come on, boys, what are we going to do? They said: Well, change the name back to St. John's East Extern. It includes all of the communities then and not one is being left out.

This sense of having a special identity inside of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is very strong for those people inside that district. They come from different parts. A lot of them have a common history together. Some, it goes back fifty years, some it goes back twenty-five years, but they have developed histories together in those pockets in the district. That experience was great because it reminded me of something that I have always known, but you always need to be reminded and affirmed of how important community is.

That is what I bring to talking about this piece of legislation. I think this legislation is extremely important. I notice that probably the first time it was discussed in the House, or the notions of this legislation were discussed in the House, was back in the year 2000. That is the earliest time I can find it where the issue of having a research ethics authority was discussed. I am delighted that we are taking steps to make it happen.

We know that we have had people in our Province who have been taken advantage of by researchers who have used them, who have used their families information, their families history, who have used parts of their bodies, who have taken samples from their bodies for research without accountability back to the people of the Province. That is just not acceptable. It is not acceptable in any level. As a person who did community development work it was not and is not acceptable for me to work with people and to use them, to use their knowledge and to use their experience. One of the basic tenets of working with people in community development or adult education is to be there together in partnership and working together and recognizing the expertise of the people and their ownership of their history and their knowledge. That principle is absolutely essential in this legislation.

I know we are going to see some amendments that will at least be sure that we understand that the legislation is coming out of that principle, out of that value. I would hope we are not just doing this legislation to satisfy the needs of the research companies. We have to be sure that we are making them do certain things in order to meet the needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why we are doing it, so that our people will not be used as guinea pigs. That they will understand if there is research going on about the part of the Province that they live in or the family that they are part of, that the reason for that research is to make life better for them. The reason for that research is to make life better for the future members of that community or the future members of that family and that they are part of that decision making.

So, an important thing that is going to have to be built into the legislation, and I understand that this will happen as well, is a responsibility for the authority, the new authority, to explicitly be aware of their need for developing public awareness. That we cannot take for granted people fully understand their rights when it comes to research. People are easily intimidated. As a person who has worked with community groups, I understand how much work has to go into helping people understand that they have their own authority and that they can act out of their own authority.

I think it is really important that the legislation shows that we understand that is what the legislation is based on, number one, and number two, that the new authority, the new Health Research Ethics Authority, will have the responsibility for promoting a public awareness, for making sure that people understand their rights.

It is wonderful to have this document in front of us and I really appreciate the fact that the minister, with his deputy minister and one other of their researchers, that we sat together and could go over some of the concerns that I have because we need to get this right. This is a new piece of legislation. It is a new area that we are moving into in terms of government. We are not new in the Province because we have our ethics boards at the university and at the Health Sciences or the Eastern authority. So it is not new in that sense but it is for government.

We have others out there who have done it. We have guidelines and all of those guidelines are there in legislation. So, it is important to take the time to look at this piece of legislation really carefully. It is a serious piece of legislation. It is not dull science. It is not dull ideas. It is really looking at how we treat our people and how we make sure that every piece of legislation that we put in place is legislation that is there for the good of the people of the Province.

It is like I mentioned earlier, when I spoke to the issue of the Standard Time, too much of our decision making gets dictated to by corporations and gets dictated to by money and the needs of money. I am not against that. We have a capital society. We all need money. Every individual needs money. A lot do not have enough. Money is essential to what we are doing, but as some of you may have heard recently - it was in a newscast today I think - the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has done recent research and recent polling. The polling says that people perceive that the gap between rich and poor is getting greater and greater. The research shows that, indeed, the gap is getting greater and greater. It is almost growing exponentially. It is rather frightening the degree at which we have a gap between rich and poor in Canada. We see that gap here in our Province. As one industry is burgeoning, we see a small group of people benefiting from that industry and the majority of the people not benefiting, and in actual fact, their situations, in some cases, getting worse not better. So that whole concern about why we are doing something, that is where it comes from in me.

If our concern is to satisfy people who make money from medical research, then we make one set of decisions. If our concern is we want medical research done for the good of the people in this Province, then we make another set of decisions and we have another piece of legislation. I do think this piece of legislation does get at my concerns, especially with the couple of amendments that have been agreed to with the minister and his assistants and they will be presented at another time. I am very, very happy that they recognized the need for what it is that I am talking about. The interesting thing with legislation - this is the first time I have had to deal so specifically with a piece of legislation, obviously, and the lobbying work and advocacy work that I have done in my past, I have had to deal with legislation, but it is a bit different from the way that I had to deal with it in the last couple of days as I studied this piece.

There is language that, at first glance, looked like it was problematic language, but as I sat and talked with the minister and his assistants, I recognized: well, it is not problematic, it is actually legal language in legislation. So, I have learned that I have to have the interpretation act in one hand as I read a piece of legislation in this hand. Not every layperson knows that. In some ways that can be problematic, but then the thing is, most lay people are not going to be picking up the legislation and trying to understand it. Anyway, what is going to be important is the practice that flows from the legislation. It seems to me that the practice that will flow from this legislation is the practice that is already in place, both with regard to our research ethics boards in this Province as well with regard to the practice around other boards that have been put in place under our health authorities and under our ministry of health.

It will be important that the authority, right from the beginning - and I would like to put this publicly on record - will need to be monitored with regard to the ongoing information campaign that I think is going to be necessary that the people in the Province know their rights. I think that a lot of effort will have to go into the authority finding ways to get that message out, and it does not have to be big glitzy kind of stuff, and I will not go into those kinds of details, but there are just so many ways in which one can get information out in communities. It is on the community level that the information has to go out, not on a provincial level, just using provincial media or provincial programs. You need to get into the community, and I think we will need to monitor the authority to make sure that kind of approach is taken.

Why I am saying that is because the researchers go to particular communities, geographically or otherwise, particular groupings of people, and those groupings of people, particularly if we know that they can possibly be targets for research, then there should be a real extra effort made to get information out to them about what their rights are when it comes to research that is going to involve them, their families, et cetera.

I think it is an exciting moment. I think it is a real sign of growing up, if I can put it that way, that we have this legislation coming in. While we have had research ethics boards, and they will continue existing, those research ethics boards really only cover the academic and health area, the formal academic and health area in the Province, so we had private companies that were able to come in without any legislation covering them. With this legislation, I see a wonderful opportunity for the ethics boards to continue their work, but for this authority to make sure that everybody in this Province, not just those who are being studied through our own research bodies, that everybody in our Province is protected.

So, with that, I thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this legislation, and I will be happy to vote for it with the amendments that I have discussed with the minister.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to have a few words with regard to Bill 23, but, before that, I certainly want to welcome and congratulate my colleague for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi whom, I have to say, in her first day in the House of Assembly, has wasted no time in getting herself oriented, getting her feet wet, both in Question Period and in debate on legislation.

From what I understand now, Mr. Speaker, she is drafting amendments to legislation for the ministers opposite, so I would say it is a good day's work for the Member for the Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, no doubt.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation and I am going to make a few comments on it, and I will certainly reserve the rest of my comments for after we have seen the amendments that are going to be brought forward.

What I want to say is this: In the Province right now, I do not think it is any secret to any of us that there is a great deal of research being carried out as it relates to genetics. Most of it is being done, as you know, in our Health Care Corporation, especially in the Health Sciences Complex, where you have some very renowned individuals who are doing some very complex pieces of work around stem cells and all the rest of it, but we also have private companies that are out there doing this as well.

I remember my first introduction to a private company that was doing work around genetics was actually in Iceland, and it was on a study tour that was being done by the government at that time, and I think the government opposite have continued to do study tours like this in different countries around the world. I remember being in Iceland and going into this genetics company that was a privately owned corporation with some affiliation with government, especially representation from their health care sector, their university, and renowned experts that were involved. It had over 200 employees in this building and they were doing research on all kinds of diseases in all kinds of families. A great deal of very personal, very private information being collected, a great deal of very personal and private testing and diagnosis being done, and that information being shared. I was somewhat skeptical in terms of what the real privacy requirement was in dealing with a company like this, and having all of this information about yourself available to a private company to do the kind of research that they were doing. I had some, I guess, hesitation about whether it was the right process or not the right process.

Of course, our discussion was centered around the fact, the similarities between Newfoundland and Labrador and Iceland. The potential for Newfoundland and Labrador to be involved in genetic research at a scale like this, that was actually happening in Iceland, and focusing on small rural communities where you have - and we have that in this Province. We have large geographies with isolated populations, we have a lot of blood-related diseases that need to be researched, so Newfoundland and Labrador was an ideal candidate to be used as an area where we could do a great deal of genetic research.

Mr. Speaker, while I was skeptical and hesitant about what was happening, I think I had very little doubt left before the end of the day, after going through all of the orientations and after discovering the tremendous amount of success that they have had in being able to diagnosis different diseases and being able to treat different diseases, in being able to prevent, in certain cases, serious illness amongst people simply because of the kinds of work that they had done, and because they were able to do it in very reserved and very secured population bases. So, I certainly do see the benefit but what I see more so is the need to have guidelines and legislation around this.

I think more and more we have seen it ourselves, ethical principles being developed within physicians within our health care system as a guidance to them and to others who have participated in medical research in the past, and it is only right that we continue that extension outside of our university, or outside of our Health Sciences Complex, to private companies that want to be involved in this kind of research as well.

Mr. Speaker, when you are doing any kind of medical research, I believe, first and foremost, that it has to be with the full consent of the individuals who are involved. I think that should take precedence always over any kind of science that we could have in our society, and I think that most people would agree with that. I certainly understand that is the intent of this bill: to ensure that individuals have the first right, and have the right to consent, over anything that could be conducted under the auspices of science.

Mr. Speaker, I understand very clearly the importance of medical research, and how important it is to our community and to our population at large. I also know that any kind of research that they do is very relevant in improving the diagnosis of disease, the therapeutic treatment of disease, and the procedures that fall within that, but I also understand it is crucial to discovering the path of disease and the genetics that is involved in that.

I realize that this is important and it needs to be done, but it needs to be done in a way that is very clearly defined, that it falls within legislation and laws, that it is overseen by non-partial, yet educated, professionals who have knowledge of ethics, who have knowledge of genetics, who have knowledge of science, who have knowledge of research, who have knowledge of what the human rights are in terms of carrying out this type of work.

I am confident, Mr. Speaker, with the individuals that would be appointed by the university, by the Health Sciences Centre, these will be competent individuals who will be able to perform their duties in the context of all these things that I have outlined.

Mr. Speaker, I also know that genetic research is important in challenging past research that has been done, to ensure that past research that has been completed and documented remains to be effective, or it can be improved upon and be more efficient than it has been, and to ensure that there is always quality.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in Newfoundland and Labrador I know that there are private companies today that are doing genetic research. These companies, Mr. Speaker, need to have legislation under which they are governed as well. It is important research because when you look at stem cell research for Parkinson's disease, which is ongoing in the Province right now - in fact, I know an individual who has been involved in that research program and that process. I also know that because of it, and because of some of the recommendations for treatment and for this individual, that it has helped them be able to carry on with a better quality of life for a longer period of time. I know that already, Mr. Speaker, first-hand from this one individual that I have had personal contact with that has been involved in the research around Parkinson's disease and the stem cell research that is being carried out there in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I am also aware of a project and have had a number of consultations and been briefed on a research project that has been ongoing on the Northern Peninsula and in Southern Labrador, a portion of my district, as it relates to diseases of the bowel like Crohn's and Colitis that have occurred in families. In that full genetic pool where people have been tested now for periods of up to ten years, diagnosis have been made, recordings have been made, analysis is being done, all with the consent, I say, Mr. Speaker, of those individuals because it has so significantly impacted upon their families; very significantly impacted upon their families. Anything that they can do which they feel will contribute to the research and improving the treatment and the diagnosis of a disease like this, they want to be able to give that information, provide that information and are doing so at no risk to themselves, Mr. Speaker. Those are two things which I have outlined that I am fully aware of and have had personal involvement in that is being carried out in terms of genetic research.

Mr. Speaker, I also know that there are a lot of blood-related diseases in this Province, simply for the reasons that I stated before. Because of the geography of Newfoundland and Labrador, because of the isolation factor of a lot of the communities and families throughout the years, there have been a number of diseases, I guess, that have developed, that have become prevalent in particular families and in their history.

I know of one community in my district, Mr. Speaker, the community of Black Tickle, where there is a disease called Lupus that has been very common in this community. Not often do you have a community of 200 people where you end up having four, five, and I think now probably even six individuals who may have been diagnosed over the last number of years with Lupus. Unfortunately, some of them have lost their lives to this particular disease. That is unheard of in a lot of cases but because of the genetic makeup of our Province, because of the isolation factor, there are a number of blood-related diseases like that, that does occur. That is just one example in that community where it has happened, and certainly a community in which a great deal of - if there was any effort and time put into the genetic research in that particular family and in that particular area, there could be a lot of information found that could certainly help in terms of diagnosing the disease or treating the disease in future years and also be able to provide some really good, solid, medical advice to this family and other families in the community that may be impacted that way.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to go on much longer. I know it is getting near the end of our parliamentary day, but I do want to say that Bill 23 will certainly provide, I think, the necessary regulations and guidelines that is required in carrying out this type of research in our Province. The main goal here is to uphold the ethical values and principles of those who participate in such research in ensuring that they have options, that they have the option to either consent or not consent, to research like this. I also know, Mr. Speaker, in having this kind of research done, it provides tremendous benefits within the health care sector of our Province and to a lot of individuals.

So, I will await to see the amendments that have been written by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. When they are presented, I will certainly have an opportunity to speak again to this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the Minister of Health and Community Services speaks now he will close the debate at second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister.

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

First of all, I would like to thank both the Leader of the NDP and the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair for their comments on second reading of this bill and look forward to the Committee stage of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank all members for their indulgence in listening to comments by myself and the two members opposite, and I move second reading of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 23, An Act To Establish A Health Research Ethics Authority For The Province, 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 Establish A Health Research Ethics Authority For the Province. (Bill 23)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 23, An Act To Establish A Health Research Ethics Authority For The Province has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. SULLIVAN: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Establish A Health Research Ethics Authority For The Province," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 23)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House do now adjourn until tomorrow Tuesday, November 21, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

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