The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today, the House of Assembly would like to welcome a group of 120 Grade 5 students from St. Peter's Elementary of Mount Pearl in the District of Mount Pearl North. The students are accompanied by their teachers and parent volunteers who are helping with the visit.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard: the hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile; the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's East; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue; the hon. the Member for the District of Kilbride; and the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

The hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile.

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

I rise first on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member on a point of order.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon during Question Period the Minister of Labrador Affairs and the Member for Lake Melville uttered certain words that were insulting and disrespectful to the Member for Port de Grave. It wasn't verified until the CD became available this morning and we viewed that, but it was also reported in the media.

That is contrary to our Standing Orders and any parliamentary authority that one might wish to consult, and I would ask the member if he would do the honourable thing and apologize and withdraw those statements.

MR. SPEAKER: Points of order should be raised when the disorder takes place. The Speaker did not hear anything that was unparliamentary yesterday. I do not know if other members heard utterings that were unparliamentary but if there were things said that was unparliamentary and the member is known to have said it, then I would leave it up to that member to withdraw the statement but I say to hon. members, when points of order occurs or when something unparliamentary happens, that it should certainly be raised at the time that the occurrence takes place.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, certainly we agree, that at the time something is said that a point of order needs to be raised at that time. However, if there was something that was said that was considered unparliamentary, without having to go back and do any review or try to see what happened, we will certainly ask any member now who has said anything that may be considered unparliamentary to withdraw that remark.

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

MR. HICKEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that remark that was made yesterday.

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

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

I rise today to recognize and congratulate Master Corporal Steven Pink, formerly of Burgeo, on his service to our country and his safe return from Afghanistan.

Master Corporal Pink is a member of the infantry with the Canadian Armed Forces who recently returned from a successful tour of duty at Afghanistan. Steven has been a member of the Armed Forces for twelve years and is now thirty years of age. This was Steven's third tour overseas and his second to Afghanistan. Steven was stationed at Afghanistan for seven months during his last stint.

Master Corporal Pink is the son of Linda and the late Fredrick Pink of Burgeo. After his tour at Afghanistan, Steven spent some time with his mother at Burgeo. A motorcade with sixty vehicles welcomed him back to town which was followed by a meet and greet luncheon hosted by local volunteer organizations at the Burgeo Community Centre. There was a huge turnout and the support from the residents for one of their own was overwhelming.

Steven is currently stationed at Pettawa, Ontario but will soon be transferred to Gagetown, New Brunswick.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending thanks to Master Corporal Steven Pink on his service to our country. All the best to Master Corporal Pink and his family.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr Speaker, our oceans have often been referred to as the final frontier for the human race. Indeed many would argue that we know more about outer space than we do about our oceans. However, I would suggest today that a talented, innovative group of our youth is well on their way to breaking down these barriers.

In that vein, I would like to congratulate the team from Gonzaga High School, located in my District of St. John's East, for placing second in the recent ROV Regional Competition held at the Marine Institute. Eighteen high school teams from all over the Island brought their best and brightest to compete for the right to represent the Province at the international ROV competition in Buzzard Bay, Massachusetts. Of the sixteen regional competitions held around the world, only Hong Kong and New England have more schools at the competition.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity to advise the House that the first place team hails from Heritage Collegiate of your District of Bonavista South. In fact, Heritage has won this competition three out of the last four years, which is truly an impressive accomplishment.

Mr. Speaker, this event is a very encouraging display of what our youth can accomplish with the right guidance and support from volunteers, mentors and sponsors as we seek to establish ourselves in this Province as world leaders in ocean technology.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating Heritage Collegiate of Lethbridge and Gonzaga High School of St. John's, on their success in looking to new frontiers.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize and congratulate Clarence Mercer on being presented the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, 2009 Bancroft Award.

Named in honour of James Frederick Bancroft, the first President of the NLTA, this award recognizes individuals for outstanding service by teachers at the branch level of the association.

Clarence Mercer has been teaching for over twenty-six years and has been involved at the branch level throughout his career. He was political action officer and secretary of the Upper Trinity South Branch, secretary and president of the Carbonear Branch, political action officer, and is the current president for the Bay Roberts Branch. He has served on social and bereavement committees and has on different occasions been a member of the school board-teacher liaison committee for the Carbonear and Bay Roberts branches.

Also with this impressive list of achievements, Mr. Mercer also made time to become involved in Education Week activities, speak outs, and has served on the Provincial Curriculum Committee, Membership Benefits and Services Committee, and Communications/Political Action Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is easy to see why he has recognized by his peers for his outstanding service to the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, and I ask all members of this House to join me in extending congratulations and appreciation to Clarence Mercer on his continuing service to education in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to rise in this hon. House to speak of the English Harbour East Lions Club.

On Saturday, May 9, 2009, I had the pleasure of celebrating the twenty-third charter night anniversary of the English Harbour East Lion's Club with the Lions and Lioness members.

As devoted volunteers, these Lions have given back so much their community. While having fun, they have continued to make a real difference in answering to the challenges that are faced by their community and neighbouring communities.

I ask that this hon. House join in sending congratulations to the English Harbour East Lions Club on the twenty-third charter night anniversary.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to pay tribute to the Children's Wish Foundation of Canada. For twenty-five years, this wonderful organization has been granting wishes to children with high-risk, life-threatening illnesses.

Each year in Canada, thousands of precious children between the ages of three and seventeen are diagnosed with life-threatening diseases. The magic of a wish provides children and their families with an opportunity to share the joy of a special experience and an escape from the day-to-day challenges of illness.

This summer, the Children's Wish Foundation will be granting its 15,000 wish to a child in a community somewhere in Canada. This is a truly remarkable milestone.

The Foundation brings wishes to life for these children, while supporting their parents and families with hope and treasured memories during the most difficult of circumstances.

On a personal note, I know two young people in my district who have had a wish granted by the Children's Wish Foundation. I thank God these two young girls, Holly Lee and Hilary Williams, are doing fine today.

I invite all Members of the House of Assembly to join with me in recognizing the Children's Wish Foundation, and the work they have done to date, touching the lives of 515 families in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Provincial Electoral District Scholarship Winners for the last year that reside in my district. The Province awarded over $200,000 in scholarships to 201 high school graduates for 2008.

These students, as well as all high school graduates, are to be recognized and congratulated on their hard work and commitment over the past several years in achieving their high school diploma. They are now prepared to pursue post-secondary studies, if they so choose, armed with the knowledge that a secondary education affords them.

I would like to congratulate in particular Catherine Orr of Mount Pearl Senior High, and Marcus Drover and Jeffrey Peach, both of O'Donel High School.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the recipients of the Provincial Electoral District Scholarship, and wish them all the best for success in the years to come.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to update residents of the Province on two programs our government introduced last year to assist families – the Progressive Family Growth Benefit and the Parental Support Benefit.

Mr. Speaker, both programs were introduced to assist with costs associated with raising a child, particularly for parents who encounter increased costs during the first year of a child's life.

Under the Progressive Family Growth Benefit program, parents receive $1,000 for every child born or adopted, and the Parental Support Benefit provides parents with an additional $100 per month for the first twelve months of a child's life. Both programs are universal and not income-based.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to notify the public that approximately 5,200 applications have been processed to date. While there is a take-up rate of approximately 87 per cent to date, I would like to encourage those who have not applied for the benefit to do so. Applications are available on-line through the Department of Finance Web site and at all Government Service Centres, obstetrical units and MCP offices.

Mr. Speaker, according to Statistics Canada, after experiencing the highest quarterly population growth since 1992 during the third quarter of 2008, Newfoundland and Labrador's population continued to increase again during the fourth quarter of 2008. Last year marked the first time in sixteen years that the Province recorded an increase in population and we are pleased that trend is continuing.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information released information in March of this year indicating that more babies were born in Newfoundland and Labrador in 2008 than in any year since 1999. A total of 4,900 babies were born in Newfoundland and Labrador last year, representing an increase of more than 300 infants from 2007.

Mr. Speaker, our government is pleased to offer both the Progressive Family Growth Benefit and the Parental Support Benefit programs. I am pleased that families are benefiting from these programs.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

Someone suggested they thought it might have more to do with the cold weather than it had to do with the government programs. In any case we note, too, that the statistics being put forth by the minister today relate to, I believe, the year 2007-2008. No doubt, anyone in this Province who is aware, those times were pretty good for Newfoundlanders in terms of employment, particularly young people, not only in the Province but a lot of them commuted back and forth at that time from Southern Ontario and Alberta.

It will be interesting to see the 2009 statistics and after, after we got hit with the economic recession, and if things stay the way that they are. Hopefully they will, and hopefully our Province will continue to increase in population, so we look forward to seeing the 2009 ones.

I understand it costs $10,000 now for the first year of a child's birth, and that comes on pretty good authority, so any amount that goes toward helping offsetting those costs, of course, is no doubt welcome to the parents of that child and those children.

The only comment we would make is, I note there are two applications required here for two different programs, and someone has already brought it to our attention without knowing, of course, that the minister was going to do a statement. You have to apply for a birth certificate, you have to apply for these two different programs, and there was a suggestion put forward that I think was a good one, that the minister might want to look at: If we are trying to reduce red tape, why would we need to have three different processes, basically, to tie into the same type of program?

Maybe that is something the minister can look at, to make the process easier for the people involved.

Thank you.

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

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

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy.

There are various thoughts going through my head. I don't know if I am supposed to congratulate the government on being the proud father, or if I should quote a great Prime Minister that we had: What are we doing in the bedrooms of the nation?

I couldn't resist making those comments. It is good to see our population is going up; I am not mocking that. I am really not. Neither am I mocking the fact that families can get some assistance in the first year, but I note that the minister does talk about how these programs are universal and not income-based. That is good. Therefore, why are we not looking at a universal child care program so that, once these children get past their first year, their families have the ability to have them taken care of while both parents, if they want to, can become part of the paying workforce and both help our economy and help their families?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House to highlight some impressive initiatives underway between Newfoundland and Labrador and our partners in Ireland, particularly in the area of ocean technology.

Supported by the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development and Ireland Business Partnerships, the Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial University has demonstrated its world-class expertise by partnering with Irish organizations on close to fifty different initiatives focused on fisheries and ocean technologies.

Collaboration has taken place through technology transfer related to fishing gear and training programs with Irish harvesters; through sharing of search and rescue curriculum with the Irish Navy; through the creation of geographical databases for the National Maritime College of Ireland; and there has been extensive seabed mapping of Ireland's waters in partnership with the Irish Marine Institute. In fact, the Irish Marine Institute was so impressed by our project called SmartBay in Placentia Bay that they have begun their own SmartBay project in Galway Bay, creating yet another avenue of ongoing collaboration.

In 2004, our government officially re-affirmed our commitment to our relationship with Ireland. Furthermore, in 2007, we signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Government of Ireland to increase collaboration in the area of ocean technology. These agreements and resulting relationships have helped facilitate many of the Marine Institute's Irish initiatives.

Historically, our economies have focused on ocean pursuits and we have developed strong ocean clusters as a result. Today, with ongoing collaboration and remarkable advances we have solidified our position as global leaders in ocean technology.

Mr. Speaker, the current economic situation highlights the necessity for, and the real value of, our partnership. It has never been more essential to maintain and strengthen our relationships with our global partners as we strive to discover new opportunities for economic growth and prosperity.

As a government, we are proactively identifying opportunities to enable us to deliver on that objective. The outstanding work of the Marine Institute, in partnership with the Department of INTRD and Ireland Business Partnerships clearly demonstrates the possibilities that exist for Newfoundland and Labrador through real partnerships with our Irish counterparts.

As we proceed, I am confident that Newfoundland and Labrador, through the work of the Ireland Business Partnerships and its many stakeholders, both here and in Ireland, will chart a course for sustained prosperity through partnerships in ocean technology and other knowledge-based sectors, while continuing to demonstrate our unique and enduring cultural ties.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his announcement and notice.

Of course, we have a long cultural and historic connection with Ireland dating back centuries, and with the Irish.

The Business Partnership: I notice the minister indicated that it got renewed in 2004, but I believe it originated back in 1999 with Premier Tobin and then Prime Minister, Bertie Ahern. That relationship has been continued and strengthened over the years.

At the time we initially entered into it for the economic benefits that it might bring to both jurisdictions, of course, Ireland was known as the Celtic Tiger with new economic programs and so on, and they were doing quite well. Unfortunately, they, like many places in the world, have fallen onto hard times as a result of this recession right now, but hopefully it is through partnerships such as this, between our Province and Ireland, that we can continue to pursue the economic activities we have there with collaboration and co-operation between our two provinces and country, and also particularly in the ocean technologies piece.

I happened to be in Ireland some years ago. The City of St. John's is actually twinned with the City of Waterford in Ireland. I happened to be there representing the Province. I had the honour of doing it some years ago. It is no doubt that with two great cultures working together you can only expect good things to come from it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I thank the minister for the advanced copy of his statement. It is good to get a report on some of the benefits that are coming from the partnership between Newfoundland and Labrador and Ireland. I would be interested though, if the minister at some point could give us more financial analysis of the benefits. I do not doubt that there are economic benefits, but especially with regard to the ocean technology, it would be good if he could give us some sense of what the benefit is that we are getting from our tax dollars through being in these partnerships. I do not doubt the value but would like to have some sense of, in hard figures what that is.

Ocean technology is extremely important but I look at: where does that fit with some of the pressing issues that we have in the fishery and what the connection is? It would be good I think for us to get a bit more detail on that. We have so many needs in the fishery right now, the need for the seafood marketing board, the need to deal with aging plant workers, falling prices for the seafood is threatening the industry this year in particular, the need for custodial management. These are issues that I would like to see what we are doing around with regard to the fishery, and are there any connections between Ireland, us and these areas? I do not think so. I do not think there is much, but still good to see the connection with Ireland around the ocean technology, but what are the benefits, Mr. Minister? That is what I would like to know

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, last December, and again on April 30, we asked the Minister of Natural Resources about potential irregularities at the Chicken Marketing Board. She stated last month that there were no irregularities to report. Yesterday the minister read a prepared statement indicating that problems had indeed been found and the matter has been referred to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary for further investigation of possible criminal wrongdoing.

I ask the minister: Why did you state on April 30 that you had received and reviewed the report and there were no irregularities to report and yet you have referred the matter now to the RNC?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When this issue was first raised with me there was an issue around criminal wrongdoing with regard to the Chicken Marketing Board. Upon investigation of audits with the Chicken Marketing Board there was no evidence that could be clearly seen to substantiate such an accusation.

I went to the RNC and I asked the RNC to investigate, Mr. Speaker. They told me that unless they had some evidence of wrongdoing that they would not do that. I went to an outside agency to ask that the Chicken Marketing Board audits be reviewed. I could not find a firm that was prepared to do that unless I had some evidence of incorrect auditing. I then went internally, Mr. Speaker, and asked our own Comptroller General to review the financial records of the Chicken Marketing Board. I received that report several weeks ago. I reviewed it. There is no evidence that I can see of criminal wrongdoing but I want to close the loop completely. While we have improved processes at the Chicken Marketing Board, I want the RNC to review to be absolutely sure that there was nothing of a criminal nature taking place there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The minister, yesterday, referenced that certain transactions led to these financial problems and mentioned in particular a staff manager in her statement yesterday.

I ask the minister: Can you elaborate on these questionable transactions which you made yesterday and the role they played in this investigation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the chicken farmers marketing board is an arms-length agency of this government. When this matter was first brought to my attention and I had an inquiry from the media, the question was later raised here in the House of Assembly, the onus was on me to go back and see if there were any irregularities. I had just been in the process of making new appointments to the board. There have been a number of staff changes. Our own internal review within the department showed that processes need to be put in place and things need to be tightened up there. There were a number of actions that we took as a department. I am not going to comment on any specific members of the board or staff. There has been a comprehensive review done. That report has not only gone to the RNC, but I have provided the report to the Auditor General for his review as well, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The minister said in her statement yesterday that an auditing firm had originally completed an audit of the Chicken Marketing Board.

I ask the minister: Who were the original auditors who did the marketing board's books, and was there any explanation given to you as to how they missed these irregularities?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the name of the auditing firm with me today. I will say, though, that the firm has been replaced. We have another firm now doing this work, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The minister also stated yesterday that government could not get other external auditing firms to re-evaluate the books of the initial auditing firm unless they knew exactly what they were looking for.

I ask the minister: How many and which external firms did you contact to re-evaluate the original audit?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will have to get that information from my staff, but the response from auditing firms that we did contact was the same as we had from the RNC. Unless there was some evidence of wrongdoing they were not prepared to review the work. That is why we went internally to the Comptroller General, to ask him to do a review of all the audits and the activities of the financial issues, particularly, of the Chicken Marketing Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the minister also alluded to the fact that the Comptroller General's Office eventually conducted the audit, and several recommendations were made in that report to address these problems at the board.

I ask the minister: What were these recommendations, and would you be prepared to table a copy of the Comptroller General's Report here in the House of Assembly?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There were a number of recommendations around processes that need to be, had to be put in place for financial management at the Chicken Marketing Board. I am happy to report that the substantial number of those recommendations had already been completed, or are well advanced by the department.

There is sensitive information in the report, Mr. Speaker. I will have to review all of that before I can make any promises to release the report, but I want to reiterate again that I have made the report available to the Auditor General, my department has had a number of discussions with him, and he has indicated at this point in time that all of the things that he would have recommended that we do in the face of this, we have already completed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

There are apparently new checks and balances and protocols established to monitor the activities and finances of the board coming out of the Comptroller General's report. There may be more, I guess, once the RNC investigation is complete, and the Auditor General's investigation.

I ask the minister: What checks and balances and protocols, to your knowledge, were not in place in the first instance that allowed these irregularities to take place?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When I reviewed all of the information I certainly had a concern about the oversight of the board and the amount of diligence that was being applied to the activities of the board. There could have been issues on travel claims. There were certainly not regular enough meetings with the banks, and not enough review of the financial activities that were happening within the board itself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the information that has been provided to us as early as last December, which we brought to the attention of the House, during this whole incident stated that department officials were removed from their positions as a result of these financial irregularities.

I ask the minister: Can you confirm whether either an assistant deputy minister or director in your department has been removed from their position as a result of these irregularities?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is a four-person board. Two of the appointments of the board are nominated by the department. The other two come from chicken farmers here in Newfoundland and Labrador. The chair and the vice-chair that are the responsibility for nomination from the provincial government were appointees of the former Administration, appointed in 2000. Their terms were up in 2007, and I thanked them for their service and I made new appointments to the Chicken Marketing Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Maybe if the minister could just clarify it for me again, my question was pretty direct: Was there any ADM or director who was associated with the chicken board incident, who was relieved from his or her duties?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: No, Mr. Speaker, there was no one relieved from their duties by my department as a result of this review. The two members that are direct nominees of the Department of Natural Resources, their term was up and they were replaced.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

We learned today that the minister has now provided a copy of the Comptroller General's report to the Auditor General. Now the Auditor General, as we are all aware, is the watchdog over public expenditures.

I am wondering, Minister, have you just asked the Auditor General to review the Comptroller General's report, or have you invited the Auditor General as well to do a forensic audit, which you could not get done externally and which was not done properly, obviously, in the first place?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General is well aware of what his authority is, and he does not need an invitation from me to do much of anything. He has certainly been made aware of this report. He called my department and asked for a copy of the report. I was more than happy to provide that to him, as well as access to my departmental officials so that he understood clearly how this issue came to our attention, what actions we have taken, and so far early indications from him are that he is happy with the actions that we have taken to date.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My other questions are for the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, a couple weeks ago I questioned the minister about how effective house arrest sentences were for people involved with the law, and whether the appropriate monitoring practices were in place. The minister committed at that time to getting certain information and bringing it back to this House.

Yesterday we learned of another incident, this time in La Scie, where an individual who was supposed to be under house arrest but instead was chased through the community by police for allegedly committing another crime.

I ask the minister: Have you checked into the issue of monitoring bracelets for individuals under house arrest, and why it appears that they are not being used?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The Chief Probation Officer for the Province has made a review of the house arrest in the Province. There are 168 conditional sentences at the present time. There are forty-three bracelets. I understand that fifteen of these bracelets, these electronic monitoring devices, have also been ordered, which will increase our number to fifty-eight. We have thirty-five probation officers, dealing with about 1,800 to 2,000 cases on average.

From time to time people will breach the terms of their conditional sentence, and if people do then they will run the risk of being incarcerated and imprisoned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

It is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that the minister was not too apt to provide the information without being prompted again.

Mr. Speaker, again, this most recent incident in La Scie happened in the Central Region where we already have noted there is a lack of probation officers in the region for the caseload they are expected to monitor. The caseload in Central is far too high as per the national average, and it is obvious that the proper monitoring of those persons under house arrest is not taking place.

I ask the minister - you undertook to find out what was happening in Central; we did not hear back, and we now have another incident - are there too few adult probation officers in Central to monitor the growing caseload?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, there are thirty-five probation officers dealing with a caseload of about 1,800 to 2,000, which would be an average caseload of fifty-five to sixty. I understand in Central there are two officers in Gander. There is only one in Grand Falls-Windsor. I understand from the Chief Probation Officer, who was recently in Central to review the situation, that some cases have been assigned from Grand Falls to the officer in Springdale and that the assistant probation officer in Springdale will - I believe it is twice weekly - go to Grand Falls to assist with pre-sentence reports.

The Chief Probation Officer is reviewing the entire system and I will be meeting with her either later this week or early next week to review what she has discovered and to discuss with her what her recommendations would be for the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Deer Lake has one medical clinic. It was built in 1972 as a three-way partnership between the federal and provincial governments and the Town of Deer Lake. It today houses the doctors, the nurses, the dentists, as well as lab and x-ray. This facility, Mr. Speaker, is in need of repairs and there have been over 3,000 people who have signed a petition to have presented in the House by their MHA, which we have not seen to date.

I ask the minister: Will government commit to finding the money that is required to make the necessary repairs to this building to ensure that medical services can continue to be provided in the Deer Lake area?

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

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, just to make a couple of corrections: number one, the member opposite talked about a three-party arrangement. This is a private clinic. This is operated by an independent corporation in the Town of Deer Lake, and Western Memorial Health Authority is a landlord in a building that is owned by them. They made a request very recently, through their MHA, for some financial assistance to be able to do some needed renovations to the building. In fact, the member involved, the MHA for that district, is going to be meeting with me tomorrow to follow up on some discussions that he has already held with the Authority to look at what options might be available to look at doing something with that particular clinic.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The volunteer board that runs this facility has been coming to government for over ten years for money to do the necessary upgrades that are required, Mr. Speaker, and they have gotten money through those years. In the last two years there have been other engineering deficiencies identified by government engineers that require a cost of over $400,000 to have done.

Mr. Speaker, this issue has been ongoing for nearly two years, and I ask the minister today, if he will commit the funds to have this work done so that the Town of Deer Lake and the volunteer board will not have to incur the pressure and the expenditure that they don't have to, to ensure that it happens.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I can't speak to it, Mr. Speaker, and no people on this side of the House can speak to anything that would have happened ten years ago, that would have happened, I say, Mr. Speaker, on your watch.

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, I have been minister for just a little over two years now. I guess, five or six months into my term I met with my colleague, the MHA for that area, with the town council and representatives of the community, toured the clinic to have a look at what they were talking about and some of the issues they had, and we had that kind of discussion with them.

The member for that area has been working closely with the council and the committee and, in fact, Mr. Speaker, the committee, I guess two to three weeks ago, finally provided some detail on the kinds of renovations that they need, and the kinds of costs associated with that. The member has been working with them for a long period of time trying to clearly identify exactly what was needed, what costs would be involved, and the extent of the renovations that are to be done. He now has that in hand and is meeting with me tomorrow to follow up on that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If you go back through the years, Minister, you can see in your department exactly where government has invested money in this facility. It was before you came into power but it was still seen as a responsibility of government to do this work.

In the last election you made commitments in Deer Lake to these people that you were going to do this work, so I ask you today, Minister: Now that you are aware of what the issues are, will government be forthcoming with the $420,000 that is needed to do these repairs over the summer?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: She is talking about making commitments. I guess the next thing is she is going to blame me for getting their MHA defeated over there the last time. Clearly, I give that credit to my colleague, the current MHA for that district, Mr. Speaker.

As I just finished saying, the question about being aware of the issue, I acknowledged having met with the town and representatives of the committee and touring the facility and saw firsthand some of the issues they were raising. Until very recently, Mr. Speaker, the committee hadn't furnished the MHA with a detailed listing of the kinds of repairs that are necessary, and the associated costs with it. They have made some general overtures around needing to have financial support, but we needed to have some sense of understanding of what that would be, Mr. Speaker. So now I need, as a result of my meeting tomorrow, we will be following up, the MHA for the region and myself and the officials of my department will follow up some discussions with Western but I needed to fully understand the scope of the work involved. Now we have some insight, we will be able to pursue it and have some further discussions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The lobster fishery continues to suffer from low prices and falling demand. The federal government pledged $10 million on Friday for marketing and promotion of Atlantic Canada's lobster fishery.

I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture today, if he has had any discussions with his federal counterpart on this commitment and what specific activities or incentives will be provided to lobster fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is correct. There was a $10 million commitment made late last week for marketing of Atlantic Canadian lobster. Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate thing about that is that it does very little, if anything, for the people who are involved in the lobster fishery in the short term in Atlantic Canada and does very little to deal with the bigger structural problems that are in the Atlantic Canadian lobster fishery.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture here in Newfoundland and Labrador and his colleagues throughout Atlantic Canada have been working aggressively to try and secure a meeting with the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on the many issues involved in the lobster fishery, the crab fishery, and the shrimp fishery in particular, in Newfoundland and Labrador and throughout Atlantic Canada and for that matter, Mr. Speaker, globally as a result of the global recession that we are facing. They have not been able to secure a meeting at this point, although they are continuing to work on it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So what I am hearing from the minister is that this $10 million federal program will not be used to offset any of the financial burdens that lobster fishermen are currently experiencing. Mr. Speaker, when I questioned the minister provincially on May 11, he stated that his department was looking at options to see what could be done to help the struggling industry in the Province.

So today I ask him, if he has developed any additional options for this industry and will the provincial government be offering some investment or incentive program to help lobster harvesters this year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the Opposition Leader would know and as the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and certainly the people in the Fishermen's Union would know, this government has, over the course of the past three years, on a number of occasions, tried to work with the industry to solicit a more aggressive marketing campaign. We offered to buy the marketing arm of Fishery Products International and put it in the hands of the industry here for a collaborative marketing effort. We tried, Mr. Speaker, just as late as the last six or eight months.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture here met with our industry. They put it to a vote. We were prepared to establish a seafood marketing council here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We were prepared to help fund that, Mr. Speaker. We were prepared to reduce the cost of licence fees so that the industry could participate in that, Mr. Speaker. All of those initiatives that our government and our Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture have tried to pursue with the industry, Mr. Speaker, have been met with resistance in the industry. As it stands right now, Mr. Speaker, there is a short-term requirement for financial aid for lobster harvesters in Newfoundland and Labrador. That request, Mr. Speaker, is in to the federal government and we wait their response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In addition to low prices, most lobster harvesters, or some recently lost gear and equipment as a result of poor weather conditions adding to their financial struggles for this year.

I ask the minister: Is there some program within the department that provides assistance for gear replacement for these particular harvesters, or will the Province look at designing a program to help the system in that capacity?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think I answered that question about four-and-a-half years ago, if my memory serves me correctly, when there was a pile of lobster gear lost on the West Coast. There is no program. There has not been a program since the late 1970s, Mr. Speaker, and without getting into it, I think there was a significant amount of legal action that took place as a result of some issues, I will suggest, in the administration of that program and I believe that two people went to jail over it.

No, Mr. Speaker, we do not plan on going down that road again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the minister about the former Grand Falls Academy High School in Grand Falls-Windsor, and the minister informed us that the provincial government had disposed of the premises by conveying it to a private individual.

I ask the minister: When this conveyance of the school to the purchaser was made, were there any guarantees or disclosures made by the vendor respecting the asbestos contained in the flooring and the walls?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: For clarity, Mr. Speaker, I think what I said yesterday, and if I did not I will correct it, that the building was the property of the school board, not of the government, and the school board would have disposed of it. It would have been my understanding and expectation that it would have been done in keeping with the particular regulations of Government Services that would have been required.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Was there a process of consultation with the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor prior to the disposal of assets to ensure they met with the developmental plans?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that if the school board disposed of the assets, they would have had to do so in keeping with provincial regulations and municipal regulations. I really cannot speak for the school board and say what kind of consultation, if any, occurred, but I can certainly endeavour to try and get that information if the member wishes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Health and Community Services was trying to downplay the systemic issues in our health care system when I raised questions arising from the recent event at G.B. Cross Memorial in Clarenville.

Mr. Speaker, we continue to have events occur that are making the public question the reliability of Eastern Health's abilities. At the very least, Eastern Health seems to have a serious continuing communications problem.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister if he would tell the House: Did G.B. Cross Memorial report the recent tragic incident to senior management of Eastern Health on the day that the near tragic event occurred?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I really wish the member opposite would not try to play cheap politics with people's lives and significant events that are happening to people of this Province.

I did not say yesterday, nor was I downplaying the significance of any event. For the member to stand in this House today and suggest that I said that is totally irresponsible on her part and playing cheap politics and trying to get a shot at me as a minister.

It is embarrassing, Mr. Speaker, to be a member of this House and listen to this member stand up day after day to try to make cheap political games out of personal tragedies. Mr. Speaker, it is embarrassing to be a part of the House and witness that.

Clearly, I did not say that in this House yesterday. What I spoke to in this House yesterday was the significance of the tragedy, and I stress my condolences on behalf of government to the family. I was not at all speaking to any issues in the broader health system. So let's make something very clear about my comments yesterday, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I too am concerned about the family and their loss, and I too have expressed my condolences to the family, but the public is speaking out.

Mr. Speaker, the Task Force on Adverse Events called for a communications plan to deal with an event that might have the potential to raise public concern due to unofficial information circulating about the event. That comes from the task force report. A relative calling Open Line, as happened Sunday night, has caused the confusion in the public.

I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: Is there a generic communications plan, as called for by the task force, that Eastern Health has to deal with public communication when the adverse event gets out into the public before they plan it to happen?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, it is extremely important if any health authority, whether it is Eastern Health or anybody else for that matter, or the department itself, if you are going to make public comment, you have to make sure that you understand what the circumstance might be.

Now, there is an event that happened at the Cross Memorial Hospital in Clarenville early Friday morning and there is an investigation taking place internally with respect to what might have happened and what might have given rise to that tragedy. Until Eastern Health is in a position to have a good understanding of what actually took place, it is impossible for them to make a public comment.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this government, health authorities, no one has any control of who may call in to Open Line shows. I do not think anyone in this House would stand here and suggest that everything repeated or everything stated on an Open Line show is a statement of fact. Many people call in speculating. Many people call in talking about things as they understand them.

I understand that they are expressing the views as they understand them, but they may not be factual. So for the member opposite, or anyone else in the public for that matter, to be running with that information as suggesting that it is factual is totally inappropriate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

What I am doing, I am not repeating anything that I have heard, I say to the minister, on Open Line. What I am saying is that concern was raised. One of the reasons concern was raised is because people do not have the facts. So, isn't there something Eastern Health could do to at least give a modicum of facts to people?

That is what the task force talks about, that you can get something out in the public before the health authority meant it to happen. What do they do when that kind of thing happens? That is what I am asking, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, there are some Open Line callers, I understand that, but the most active voice on this issue is the member opposite.

I give credit to the Leader of the Opposition for having the decency and an understanding of the sensitivity of the issue and not raising it yesterday and again today, and I commend you for that.

For the member opposite to be standing the second day in a row, and going out in the public domain and the media, she is the single loudest voice on this issue and it is shameful to listen to her again stand in this House. I suspect that when she leaves here she will rush out and have another scrum and have another comment in the public domain again, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

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

MS PERRY: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Select Committee appointed to draft a reply to the Speech of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, I am pleased to present the report of the Select Committee as follows:

To His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, The Honourable John C. Crosbie, may it please Your Honour, we the commons of Newfoundland and Labrador in Legislative Session assembled beg to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech with which Your Honour has addressed this House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Pursuant to section 16 of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, an independent committee called the Members' Compensation Review Committee shall be appointed at least once during each General Assembly.

This committee prepares a report respecting salaries, allowances, severance payment and pensions for Members of the House of Assembly. The Review Committee reports to the Speaker, who presents the recommendations to the House of Assembly Management Commission which can address some of the issues, while other issues which require legislative amendments are referred to the appropriate departments for preparation of a bill.

I have consulted with the Government House Leader, with the Opposition House Leader, and with the Leader of the Third Party, on the appointments to this committee as required by subsection 16(2) of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act and I am now reporting to the House.

Three well-respected individuals have been solicited to serve on this first Members' Compensation Review Committee, and I understand that the Government House Leader will be introducing the resolution today to appoint this particular committee.

Further reports by standing and select committees.

Notices of Motion.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, to build on what you had indicated regarding the Members' Compensation and Review Committee, I move, seconded by the Opposition House Leader and Member for Burgeo & LaPoile:

WHEREAS subsection 16(1) of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act requires that an independent committee, called the Members' Compensation Review Committee, be appointed at least once during each General Assembly; and

WHEREAS, in accordance with subsection 16(2) of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, the Speaker has consulted with all House leaders on the appointment of the said Committee; and

WHEREAS all House leaders have agreed with the introduction of this Resolution; and

WHEREAS, under subsection 16(4) of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, a Members' Compensation Review Committee appointed under this resolution must report to the Speaker on its recommendations within 120 days of its appointment;

BE IT RESOLVED THAT Joe O'Neill, Cathy Bennett and Brian Barry be appointed to the Members' Compensation Review Committee, with the appointment to be effective on July 6, 2009; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Members' Compensation Review Committee inquire into and prepare a report respecting the salaries, allowances, severance payments and pensions to be paid to Members of the House of Assembly; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Members' Compensation Review Committee, as part of its inquiries, include consultations with appropriate persons who can assist the Committee with respect to its required duties; and

BE IT FURTHER REOLVED THAT the Members' Compensation Review Committee deliver its report to the Speaker on or before October 31, 2009; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the House of Assembly Service conclude the contractual arrangements required to carry out the intent of this Resolution.

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

Tabling of documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 4, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Tuesday, May 26, 2009.

Further, Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 5, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Tuesday, May 26, 2009.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock p.m. today, Tuesday, May 26, 2009.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: A further motion is that this House do not adjourn at 10: 00 o'clock p.m. today, Tuesday, May 26, 2009.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Transportation and Works, to ask for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Rail Service, Bill 36.

I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Transportation and Works shall ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Rail Service, Bill 36, and that this bill be now read a first time.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. Minister of Transportation and Works to introduce a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Rail Service," carried. (Bill 36)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Rail Service. (Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 36 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 36 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 36 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we will continue on the Order Paper with the third reading of bills.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice and the Attorney General, that Bill 1, An Act Respecting Apologies, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 1, An Act Respecting Apologies, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

All those against, 'nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Apologies, Bill 1.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 1 has now been read a third time, and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Apologies," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 1)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Government Services, that Bill 22, An Act Respecting Consumer Protection And Business Practices, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that Bill 22, An Act Respecting Consumer Protection And Business Practices, be now read a third time.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Consumer Protection And Business Practices, Bill 22.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 22 has now been read a third time, and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Consumer Protection And Business Practices, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 22)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Government Services, that Bill 24, An Act Respecting The Registration Of Births, Marriages, Deaths And Other Vital Events, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 24 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Registration Of Births, Marriages, Deaths And Other Vital Events, Bill 24.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 24 has now been read a third time, and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Registration Of Births, Marriages, Deaths And Other Vital Events," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 24)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Government Services, that Bill 25, An Act Respecting Marriage In The Province, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion, that Bill 25 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Marriage In The Province, Bill 25.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 25 has now been read a third time, and it is ordered that Bill 25 do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Marriage In The Province," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 25)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Government Services, that Bill 26, An Act To Provide For Change Of Name, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 26 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 Provide For Change Of Name. (Bill 26)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 26 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Provide For Change Of Name," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 26)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General, that Bill 27, An Act Respecting The Public Trustee, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 27 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Public Trustee. (Bill 27)

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

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

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 31, An Act To Repeal The Government-Kruger Agreements Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 31 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 Repeal The Government-Kruger Agreements Act. (Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 31 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Government-Kruger Agreements Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 31)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Education, that Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: 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'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act. (Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 33 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions 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.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 13, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, The Child Care Services Act, The Child, Youth And Family Services Act And The Regional Health Authorities Regulations. (Bill 35)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, The Child Care Services Act, The Child, Youth And Family Services Act And The Regional Health Authorities Regulations, Bill 35, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, The Child Care Services Act, The Child, Youth And Family Services Act And The Regional Health Authorities Regulations." (Bill 35)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, that we move Bill 35. This is An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, The Child Care Services Act, The Child, Youth And Family Services Act And The Regional Health Authorities Regulations.

Mr. Speaker, during this sitting of the House and in our Budget this year, government announced the establishment of a new department known as the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services.

Mr. Speaker, this department has been created so that we can strengthen our focus, government's focus on the needs of children, youth and their families and be able to build on programs and create programs that will help support a culture of accountability and excellence in the area of child, youth and family services, and the way these services are delivered in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, the authority or the responsibility to deliver the full range of services for child, youth and family services rests with the regional health authorities in this Province, but as the new department develops, the responsibility for the delivery of these services will transfer from our regional health authorities into the new Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. This legislation today is to assist with the transition or the shifting of responsibility from the health authorities into the new line department.

This bill today, Mr. Speaker, Bill 35, ensures that we are prepared to do this transfer. So when we are able to do the transfer this legislation will enable us to be able to do it. This legislation is certainly important as we shift the authority from one body, being the health authorities, into the line department.

We need to ensure that by amending the relevant legislation and including the regulations of the regional health authorities, that we do these amendments in order to be able to shift the responsibility into the new Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. We will see, in large measure, as we do this amendment here today that there are references to the authority. When we talk about the authority, that means the regional health authorities, but we will be shifting the responsibility from the authority, either to the department or to the minister. That is key in the amendments that we are doing here today, Mr. Speaker.

It is also important to note that the bill that we are debating here today will be proclaimed at a later date to be selected by government. What that means is because we go through this legislation, through second reading and through Committee, and before the end of this week, hopefully through third reading, that it does not mean that because we have done this legislation at this time that it will be proclaimed and come into effect right away. It will be proclaimed at a later date to assist with the transition. Meaning that as we are prepared, we have our review done and we are able to take on the responsibility of these services, we will proclaim the legislation at that time. So because we go through third reading, it does not mean that the transition between the authorities and the department has happened or will happen immediately. We need to ensure that we do the necessary transition and that as we plan that transition we will be able to establish some dates where we are able to assume the responsibility from the health authorities.

We recognize that some regions or program components may be ready to be transferred before others. So for that reason, Mr. Speaker, we are seeking a provision that will allow the flexibility to conduct the transfer in a phased-in approach, should that be necessary. So we may actually phase in a program or a region at a time as opposed to taking full responsibility at a particular date. In the planning stages, this legislation will allow us some flexibility to be able to plan and accomplish the transition.

I am going to go through some of the highlights of the bill to explain what it is we are hoping to accomplish through this today. The Adoption Act, clauses 1 to 3 will amend the Adoption Act. What we will be doing there is we will be removing the definition of authority, as I indicated, because the authorities will no longer be delivering the service. It will be the department or – the responsibility will shift to the department or to the minister. In clauses 1 to 3 regarding the Adoptions Act, we will remove the definition of authority. We will also clarify that future directors will be employed by the government and not appointed by the regional health authority. Again, it brings in line the fact that it will be the department and not the regional health authorities, and of course any directors will be positions that are deemed necessary for the purpose of the act.

So we will be looking at the organizational structure of the department and then we will be able to appoint directors to fit the organizational structure of the department as opposed to the regional health authority, which right now they say they are appointed by the regional health authority. They will be appointed by the department.

This also recognizes that the Provincial Director of Adoptions now will no longer need special access to information in the care and custody of an authority given that any adoptions information will be the care and custody of the department. Right now the provincial director needs special authority or access to information from the regional directors who are responsible for adoptions. So that will be removed because at this point we have a provincial director who has to deal with separate authorities and separate boards. However, as a line department, you will not need special access, the flow of information should be within the department.

With regard to the Child Care Services Act, clauses 4 to 8 will amend the Child Care Services Act. Again, we will be removing the definition of authority and replacing a reference to authority with the department. Again, that is in line with switching from the regional health authorities into a line department.

We will certainly be clarifying, directors will be employed by the government, and that two accountability clauses will not be necessary given that directors will be employed by government. Again, it is talking about removing the authority and what is vested in the authority, legally, to the line department.

With regard to Child, Youth and Family Services, clauses 9 to 15 will amend the Child, Youth and Family Services Act. Again, we will be removing the definition and the key references to authority, meaning that it will no longer rest with the regional health authority, but it will be with the department. Again, we will be looking at directors; as opposed to saying that directors are with the regional health authority, the directors that we will appoint as necessary for the administration of the act. The directors and the reporting of the directors and how many and their authority will be with the line department as opposed to what is set out in the present act right now. The authority is vested to the directors now by the regional health authorities.

We will be moving the authority for the establishment of custody review committees to the minister and making consequential changes to references regarding membership. Right now, the custody review committees are established by the health authorities and report to the Director of Child, Youth and Family Services and the health authorities. As we no longer will have the health authorities involved, the authority to set up these review committees will be made by the minister as opposed to the directors of the health authorities.

The regional health authority regulations: we are also amending the regional health authority regulations, which is clause 16, to delete reference to Child, Youth and Family Services as this is intended to clarify the transfer of Child, Youth and Family Services from the regional health authorities to the department. That is clause 16.

Clause 17 will also clarify that any agreements – and I think this is particularly important, because I think there will be a question posed on this, probably from a lot of the social workers working in the field. There are a lot of people who have orders in relation to Child, Youth and Family Services now. Clause 17 will clarify that any agreements, orders of a court or director or any key decisions that create a legislated responsibility for authority will become the responsibility of the Province after the transfer of services occurs. Right now, if there is a court order that gives authority to the Director of Child, Youth and Family Services in a regional health authority, when we transfer services that responsibility will transfer to the new department as opposed to remaining within the health authority once they no longer have this level of responsibility.

The final clause is clause 18 of the bill, and that establishes a very important point. That is - and I have already spoken to this - that the bill will come into force at a later date to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. This can occur in a staggered fashion so we can transfer services from the regional health authorities to the Province in a orderly manner. That, of course, will depend on the transition and the planning and as we are ready to take responsibility.

In saying that, all services may come on the same day. It may be a transition that happens that all the planning is made or it may be something that we are going to stagger the date so we take on a certain program or region, we evaluate how we are doing, and we look at the issues before we move into the next area. That has not been determined, but this will certainly allow the flexibility for the leadership and the transition team to be able to make some suggestions as to how they feel is the most orderly way to do the transfer.

It is important to realize – and I think this is a very important message, particularly for the employees who work in Child, Youth and Family Services or the clients of that service - that this transfer will not take place until the proclamation occurs, so it is not going to happen at the end of this week. We certainly worked through that plan in the process.

Mr. Speaker, certainly, as we begin debate on this bill it is important that people understand that the provision of services and programs to clients right now of Child, Youth and Family Services will continue to be the responsibility of the regional health authorities. Until we actually do the transition, we do the proclamation and we do the transition of services, if people require services at this time or are wondering where the authority is, until this is proclaimed it is status quo for families and for clients and the set up and how they deal with the services and how services are being delivered in the Province. They will certainly be accessing services through the regular way, through their local community offices as they have been up to this point.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, this bill represents a very proactive step this government is taking so that we can be prepared for the future realignment of programs and services for Child, Youth and Family Services. As the Minister Responsible for Child, Youth and Family Services, I am certainly looking forward to this work and to the important work of how we are going to build this new provincially-led service and how we are going to deliver it across Newfoundland and Labrador. I certainly think that one of our challenges that we need to be able to accomplish as we set up this new service, is, we need to look at it in two ways. One is to set it up as a culture of excellence, because for us to set up a service and to put as much work into this and research and planning that we need to do, to say we are going to set up a service that is probably the second or third best in the country, I do not think represents where we need to go. We certainly need to have a culture and a service of excellence. It is going to take a lot of hard work, but I think you know that we are prepared for that and that the staff are prepared to do that.

We also need to have a culture of accountability right through the whole system. We are certainly in an era right now where the general public and the clients of any service expect accountability and we need to make sure that we build the supports into this program, starting with the legislative review and going through whatever we need to do, whether it is policy and programs or staff training or quality control and documentation, that accountability has to certainly be a theme along with excellence in everything that we do.

Mr. Speaker, that certainly outlines the intent of Bill 35 and I am certainly looking forward to my colleagues here in the House of Assembly and their comments regarding this act.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to speak to Bill 35, first of all to outline that what this bill does is makes amendments to four other acts of the Legislature, and necessary amendments, I guess, in order for government to foster its commitment to establish the new Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. Those acts which are being amended through Bill 35 include the Adoptions Act, the Childcare Services Act, the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, and the Regional Health Authority regulations.

Mr. Speaker, government made the announcement back in the Budget this spring, that they would indeed establish a new Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. In fact, we thought it was an appropriate direction for government to move in, especially when you look at the current climate around health care in the Province today, and the fact that you had the full Department of Health and Community Services and Child, Youth and Family Services all operating under the one operational department, and taking in a broad range of services and programs to people all over the Province.

We felt, Mr. Speaker, that it was necessary to see this particular department watered down to a certain degree to assign specific roles and responsibilities. We certainly felt that the transitions that have occurred in health care over the last number of years, in particular with the transitional process of the boards, that it was necessary for government to give more attention to the day to day operational components of our health care system, and also to the community services and delivery components that affected children and programs related to children in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I guess for us, we have dealt with a number of issues as an Opposition that would have been the catalyst, I am sure, for government to look at how this could be done better. How do we streamline our service delivery and programs, how do we give it more profile and attention, how do we ensure that it is effective, that it is reliable, that it is accountable, as we move through it? I am sure there have been other factors.

I think, Mr. Speaker, of the Zachary Turner Inquiry. The inquiry in the Province which looked in depth at how the Department of Social Services and Child, Youth and Family Services operate in this Province when it comes to delivery of programs and the protection of children that are in custody or wards of the state. That particular inquiry or investigation made a number of recommendations; a number of recommendations of changes that needed to occur within the service delivery, within the accountability process of providing for children in the Province. Especially for children that were in the custody of Child, Youth and Family Services.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, there have been other cases reported to the Child Advocate, and also, I am sure, to the Department of Health and Community Services over the years that have been important as well. Cases that would have required some internal investigation and would have had outcomes, again, that would have defined the fact that there needs to be some changes made and there needs to be a stronger level of accountability within the delivery of these programs.

I am sure that there were a number of factors that encompassed a decision for government to move in this direction, notwithstanding the day to day operational challenges that we find ourselves in with regular health care programs within the Province. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, it is any secret that anyone who leads a Department of Health and Community Services in this Province has no easy job, nor do the CEOs that run many of these corporations. They do not have an easy job, because they need to be accountable to every last citizen of the Province who on any given day could find themselves dealing with any facet of the health care system. I can tell you, I am certainly one member who does not underestimate the importance of the roles that these individuals play or the responsibility that they assume when they take on those particular jobs.

I think the Department of Health and Community Services, in addition to being the largest financial budget that is allocated by the Province, is probably one of the more critical program service and delivery agents that government has in terms of providing for people. Whether that would be from the time they enter the doors of an emergency room in the hospital, to regular check-up procedures that they have with specialists and clinical operations throughout the Province; whether it is a person getting on an ambulance, a person being admitted to hospital, a person undergoing treatment or diagnostic testing, or people who require services in home care, in long-term care, in personal care; whether it has to do with individuals that need protection in our Province, our youngest, most vulnerable, our children; whether it requires foster care services, addiction services or mental health care. All of these things make up the facets of our health care department today.

If I was to look at any department in government and say this is probably a department that has an overwhelming amount of responsibility, a department that has an overwhelming accountability to the people of the Province it would be that department. I think it was definitely a move in the right direction.

Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, under the new department we will be able to not only drill down into the issues that have been systemic in the delivery of services to children and youth in the Province, but hopefully we can take the recommendations from reports like the Turner Report, like the mental health report, and we can build on those particular recommendations.

I am hoping that Child, Youth and Family Services does not just become a departmental head, it does not just become another operational entity of government, but it really becomes a department that focuses the programs and services for children and youth and looks at improving those programs; looks at making the modifications where it is needed; looks at how they can be more far reaching to children and youth in the Province; looks at where the gaps are in service delivery and how those services can be further developed and more enhanced to meet what their needs are.

I know, Mr. Speaker, just looking at foster care alone, look at some of the issues that we have faced in the Province in the last couple of years around foster care, where we have had hundreds of children who have been in foster care in the Province, where we have had wait lists of hundreds of other children with no placements for them, because we have not had enough foster families or foster homes to take those children. Look at the number of children we have had in foster care outside of the Province, who have been in foster homes in Ontario and in Quebec and in other places in the Province, getting that level of protection and the level of care that they required.

It is a very important problem, because the only time a child is ever taken and placed in foster care is when the child needs to have that type of protection or that type of care to ensure their safety, to ensure their well-being, and to ensure that their overall health is progressive. Whenever we have cases like that in the Province we should not have to take those children and place them on a wait list until there is a family to take them. We should have families who are being paid decently to provide for the welfare of our children. We should have families who are orientated, who are given briefings and are well trained.

Mr. Speaker, most families that become foster care families do so just out of their general love and caring way for children. They want to do something, they want to give something back to society, and this is their way of doing it, by providing for the safety and health of a child in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, with that also comes the expense of providing for those children. That is why I think if we had better incentive programs for foster families – and I have looked at programs in Ontario, in fact, when I have been there, and met with foster families in that province and the service they are delivering. I think, if there was more financial stability for the family to ensure and provide for all of the needs of the child from that perspective, then we would certainly not be having the wait lists that we have today.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of children in care who require specific services, who require the services of addiction counselors, and who require services for behavioral management and anger management issues. Many of these children – I know in the case of Labrador, in particular, with our Aboriginal population, at any given time there are from twenty-five to thirty of these youth who are placed in care outside the Province.

While I am all for putting a child where the service is, as a short-term mechanism to meet their needs, I think it is time to look at the long term, what we require in the long term to support children and provide service for children who are now being placed in care outside the Province.

I know in two particular organized agencies in Ontario they are taking a lot of youth from Labrador right now on an annual basis at a cost, I think, that is somewhere around $10,000 a month, in some cases, and sometimes a lot less than that, for the government, through Labrador-Grenfell Health. Mr. Speaker, these youth are being placed in agencies and then in homes with families who are able to provide and help them with issues around addictions, around substance abuse, around anger management, around fetal alcohol syndrome, all of these different challenges that these children face, including learning disabilities.

Why can't we develop for the long term to provide those services here in Newfoundland and Labrador? Because I do think that we can, and I do think we can do it allowing our Aboriginal children today who are in those facilities in central Canada to be closer to their own Province, to be closer to their own culture, and to have more of an opportunity to interact and still engage with their families so that once they finish the program, once they have gone through the healing process, it is easier to make the transition back to their reserves or their communities or their families.

Mr. Speaker, children in custody from the Labrador region being in custody outside the Province is nothing new. It is not something that has just happened in the last two or three years. It has been going on now for probably ten years in the Province, so it is no longer considered to be a short-term fix. Today it is being looked at as the long-term treatment solution for these children, and I would just like to see government make a move to develop those programs and that infrastructure right in our own Province.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, the families who are providing this care, it is their full-time job. It is a full-time occupation for them, because they are taking these children through - or youth, I should say - through every step in their lives. They are ensuring that they go to class. They are taking them to meet their social workers. They are taking them to their addiction counselling sessions. They are taking them to meet their psychologists, for their psychiatry appointments. They are engaging with them in community sports and community recreation. They are there to help them with their homework, to help them with their anger management issues or other issues that they face. They are actually taking them through every single facet in their life that they need to learn as a part of society, so it has become a full-time commitment for these families. This is their job and, as a result of it, they are paid - they are paid appropriately, Mr. Speaker - to provide that service, to provide that service so that we are ensured that the service is full-time, that it is to the calibre that it needs to be, that these families are trained and orientated in a fashion to be able to support the young individuals who are in their homes and in their care. Again, I hope under the new department that they will start looking at those types of services that can be done right here in the Province to ensure for the longer-term treatment of young people.

I just talked about cases from Labrador because I am more familiar with the caseload there, and the number of kids that are being placed, and the kind of things they suffer from, but it is happening all over the Province. Maybe not to the same degree, maybe the statistics are not as high, but there are a number of cases in all areas of the Province where there are children being placed in care programs similar to this in other provinces in Canada.

The other issue, Mr. Speaker, under the new department that I hope government will look at is mental health services to youth. We have had cases in this Province - shameful, shameful cases, Mr. Speaker - where our young people, our young, more vulnerable youth, who have now been in hospital facilities and out of hospital facilities in this city for the past two years, suffering from mental illness and not getting any stability, not being treated properly. Mr. Speaker, I raised the case in this House of Assembly of three young girls that I had become very familiar with their cases and, in fact, have even had the opportunity to talk with them, to talk with their families. Honest to God, I have to say, I have never seen anything sadder in my life, sadder in my life than listening to the story of a young girl and her family who have spent as much as four months at one time locked up at the Janeway Hospital without full services of a psychologist, without having all of the rehabilitative treatments that they needed to be able to deal with their suicidal issues, to be able to deal with the chronic mental illness that they suffered from.

Can you imagine four months, as a thirteen-year-old or fourteen-year-old, being locked up in a facility, having someone escort you to the bathroom, not having to go to school, not having to interact with your friends, not ever getting to walk outside to get fresh air, but not getting the treatments? If they were there and they were being treated, and you knew that at the end of two months or three months that this was a young person that you could start integrating back into society, getting them familiar with going back to school, getting them familiar with interaction with their friends again, and their family, ensuring that they were developing far enough that they had the strength and the courage to deal with the mental illness that they suffered from, maybe then you could understand some of these things; but when I listened to their stories and to know what they have gone through, and then not only be locked up there for four months and then be told, okay, you can go home now – well, it is not that easy. It is not that easy to just get in a car and drive home and expect that you are going to get up tomorrow morning and this young person is going to function like a normal fourteen-year-old.

It does not work that way. In fact, Mr. Speaker, on every occasion that one of these young kids was released from a mental health institution, almost on every occasion, they attempted suicide within twenty-four hours again. That should tell you – that alone should tell you, Mr. Speaker - that they did not get the level of treatment that they required in order to be functional and make the integration back into society.

So, what happens to them in the system? They continuously are being brought back to the emergency rooms. They are continuously being hospitalized. They are continuously being left without services, without treatments, for months again, and then they are released again.

One young person has been through this for two years. In fact one of them, Mr. Speaker, was turned away from the Janeway – it is just as well to put it that way – turned away simply because it was felt that they could not handle the multiple disciplines of mental illness that this child was going through, and they were referring them to the Waterford Hospital.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, they were taken to the Waterford Hospital under cover of darkness, shackled, under police escort, which is no way for any child to be treated in the Province; unless, of course, they are a common criminal. But these people were not common criminals. These people were sick individuals. They were sick, they had problems, they needed treatment.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, they were taken to the Waterford Hospital, and one of these children, one of these youth was actually hospitalized on a floor with twenty-four adults who were also there looking to be treated for mental illness issues. They were also of both genders. They ranged from different ages and they ranged from different types of mental illness. Was that an appropriate environment to place a child into? If it were my child, Mr. Speaker, I would have been just like that parent acted, who felt they were restrained and had no control over what was happening to their child. Because the child had been placed under the custody and the care of the physicians and of the authorities which did not grant the parents any discretion as to what treatments the child got or what services they got. So the parents were completely helpless. They could not do anything. They had no say.

Mr. Speaker, can you imagine yourself in that position? Can you imagine yourself being placed in that position, and then to know that this child spent months and months at the Waterford Hospital on this same floor where there was violent action occurring between other adult patients; on a floor where there was vulgar language being used; on a floor where the consumption of tobacco apparently was being allowed in a certain confined area. This is the environment under which a fourteen-year-old mentally ill child was being placed to be cared for in the Province. Now that alone should tell you that there is a problem with our system. That alone should tell you that there is a need for improvements.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the minister, under this new department, will give more focus to this issue; although, at the time, we have a commitment from the government that they will look at constructing a youth treatment facility in the Province. We know that they will construct a youth treatment facility in the Province but the treatment facility, we have not been told what it is going to look like in terms of programs, in terms of services, in terms of capacity. We have not been told when it is going to be ready to provide services to people in this Province, and we have not been told what the interim solution is for young people that are suffering from mental illness in this Province.

Now, I just talked about two cases in particular. Let me talk about another case that I have dealt with from Central Newfoundland, a case of where a child was seeing a psychiatrist at a hospital in Central Newfoundland and, all of a sudden, that individual moved. That psychiatrist moved and there was no one else to take on this particular case. Parents have had to take their child to the emergency room in Grand Falls and leave and drive to St. John's with their young sixteen-year-old child to come to the Janeway to try to get services for that child because they needed it. They were very sick and they needed it. They did that more than once. It was on more than one occasion when they have had to take their child and travel right across the Province in order for that child to get the services of a psychiatrist for their mentally ill problems that they were suffering from.

There were others, Mr. Speaker, that needed to go into proper treatment facilities, and there were treatment facilities looked at outside the Province. I remember one set of parents sitting with me one day in my board room telling me that Eastern Health and the Department of Health had recommended this particular institution for their child to go to, to get treatment. When they went on-line and started to search and find out what this treatment facility was all about, they found that this treatment facility had been surrounded by scandal. There were actually issues of abuse. There were actually issues of other major concern that surrounded this facility in which a number of people had been fired from their jobs because of how they dealt with children and youth that were hospitalized there for mental health treatment.

So you need to be taking this much more seriously, and if you are going to recommend a facility check it out first. Check it out first. Do not leave it to the parents to take the concern and the initiative to go and do that. Why would you even recommend a facility without having it checked out? Again, it just goes to show that they were desperate to find a solution and not thorough in doing their work; again, an injustice to these young people that suffer from mental illness in the Province who need those services.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on with dozens of cases like this because we have dealt with so many of them, but I think the point is being made that there are gaps in many of these programs that are there to provide for children and youth in our Province that need to have improvements. They need to have corrections. You look at things like the Assisted Living Accommodations, and that is the program that government uses. I guess it is like a last resort kind of program, when they take children and they have nowhere to place them. They are in the care of the state but they have nowhere to place them. They put them in alternative living accommodations, whether that be putting them up in a hotel room with home care workers, putting them up in a rented house or apartment units and having them cared for by home care or child care workers. Mr. Speaker, where are the regulations around all of those programs, because my research is telling me it does not exist? It does not exist. Where are the qualification requirements for those care takers that are going in and caring for these children and youth in a hotel or in an apartment?

The minister and the government, when I asked the questions around it going back a year ago, stood in the House and said: well, what is the option? Do we leave a child in an environment where there are issues of safety or there are issues of abuse? Well, of course you do not; common sense will tell you that you do not. That is certainly not what we were suggesting. What we were suggesting is that if you are going to use that kind of a solution as an alternative living arrangement for children in custody, then regulate the process, ensure that the people you are hiring to provide the services are properly trained. Is that too much to ask for? Not just field it out to an agency and leave it to the agency to create their own criteria, because that is pretty much what is happening in the Province. Mr. Speaker, when we raised it, it was well over a year ago now. I have heard nothing from the government on it since. The only response was: What was the alternative? Well, Mr. Speaker, it is not about what the alternative is, it is about, if you are going to choose it as your alternative we do not have a problem with that, but make sure that you also do due diligence to ensure that we are not just sending people in to care for children who have anger management issues, children that have issues around abuse, whether that be physical or emotional or sexual abuse, and have them there to care for these children when they have no experience, no orientation, no training to be able to deal with any of those issues.

Mr. Speaker, those are the kinds of issues that we are hoping this new department will be able to take on, will give more attention to, and ensure that the programs and services that are there for our young people are strengthened and that they are more accessible and that they are more progressive and that they are just not stuck in doing things the same old way if the results are not speaking for themselves. The results have to be measured. The results have to be measured in terms of ensuring how many children suffering from mental health services or addiction services are being rehabilitated and are being transitioned back into their families and back into society.

We need to be able to measure, Mr. Speaker, the success of children who are coming through our foster care system, to ensure that they are getting the supports that they need as a foster child, as a child of the Province, ensuring that they are getting the kind of standard of living that is measurable and necessary in order for them to see proper success and growth. We need to be able to measure those things. We need to be able to look at how many children and families together are being rehabilitated, how many children are able to be placed back into the family unit, what programs are going to be there for families, especially families, Mr. Speaker, which we take children from that might be families that suffer from alcoholism or from drug addiction, which are both illnesses within themselves. How is our success rate in healing and rehabilitating those individuals, so that they can care for their children properly and raise their children properly?

Mr. Speaker, I think that it also has to have very measurable outcomes, and one of the good things about taking it out of the broader Department of Health and Community Services and putting it into Child, Youth and Family Services as a separate department is it gives government the opportunity to be able to really look at all of those issues very carefully and to devise not only programs and services that will help these families and their children but also it allows them to look at the real success of what they are doing, to measure the outcomes of their programs and services. I think that, in itself, is as important as well.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the minister talks, in this legislation, about how it will not be proclaimed immediately, and we certainly would not have a problem with that. We understand how that works. In fact, my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, reminded me that when we did the Freedom of Information Act it was proclaimed at different stages. In fact, it probably took three to four years before all of the act did get proclaimed, and we would certainly understand that the reason for that would be that this deals with four different acts of the Legislature. It will require some transitional issues with the health authorities in particular and we certainly understand why government would need the time to phase this in and to do it appropriately.

The only thing that we would ask, Mr. Speaker, is that it be done as quickly as possible, that, while time is required and there is a process to be followed, there should not be any further time taken than is necessary to ensure that the department is set up and operating effectively as soon as possible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne): The hon. the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

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

I am quite pleased to speak to Bill 35, which is An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, The Child Care Services Act, The Child, Youth And Family Services Act And The Regional Health Authorities Regulations.

Of course, this bill is necessary because of the change in structure that is going to take place over the next year or so, I guess the timeline is going to be, whereby Child, Youth and Family Services are going to be moved out from under the Ministry of Health and Community Services, and moved into its own department.

I have said before in the House, and I will repeat again today, that I am very pleased the government has seen that this is the direction in which we should move in this Province, that the issues under Child, Youth and Family Services are so important that there needs to be a department totally devoted to that whole area of work, where the department fully understands what it is that is required under Child, Youth and Family Services.

I think what I want to use as my starting point is a meeting that I had two years ago. The meeting was with a group of social workers, a group who at the time felt so vulnerable and felt so under attack in the department that they were trying to work in, that they requested to meet with me privately outside of the House of Assembly, and we actually met in my home one evening.

I remember that meeting very, very well. It was initially stressful and tense, because the social workers themselves had so much to say and did not know where to start. When they got going, when they started speaking, the first point they made that was so clear, was that under Health and Community Services they were in a department that did not understand community work, in general, did not understand Child, Youth and Family Services, and they did not have any priority in the department. That was how they were experiencing it as social workers. They did not have any priority. They were underfunded, they were under-resourced, they were stressed, it was an extremely intense meeting that I had with those social workers, and they were just begging for somebody to listen to them to understand the changes that needed to be made.

I have never forgotten that meeting. That meeting has always been with me, but I was particularly reminded of it last week when we received a copy of the Clinical Services Review, which was a review that was put in place last year by the government, a review of Child, Youth and Family Services as it existed under Health and Community Services.

When I read this review, the final report which came out in December 2008, though we only received it last week, when I read this review I was reminded of the meeting that I held with those social workers two years ago. This report, which is an excellent report - this review is very, very good - when I read it I realized that all the insights that were in this report I had heard from these social workers whom I met with two years ago.

Those social workers were educated and trained in their field; I think there were four of them. They had a tremendous length of experience among the four of them. They knew how the system should work, but they knew everything that was wrong. When I read the Clinical Services Review, I heard their voices talking to me about the fact that they did not have time. They were not only in protective child; they were in the broader field of Child, Youth and Family Services, but child protection was a major thing that they talked about. They fully understood that they had to put so much time into crisis response and they were so under resourced, in terms of numbers of workers, that putting all the effort into doing good crisis response, because this is an issue that had arisen and there was a lot of criticism about crisis response, that putting so much into it with so few resources, they did not have the time to do the rest of the work that they needed to do in the system. When I read some of the comments from the clinical services report, I thought, yes, the social workers that I met with would say yes to everything that is written here.

For example, one of the things that is in the report, on page eighty-nine: There needs to be a higher level of contact in order to provide an effective service and to ensure the children are receiving appropriate care.

The social workers I met with that evening in my home would say yes, yes, yes, to that. They know that there has to be ongoing contact, but at that time they did not have enough people to do the work in order to have ongoing contact. They were overwhelmed with their caseload.

Another thing that is in the Clinical Services Review, it says a higher level of contact is required to provide an effective service and to ensure the child is receiving appropriate care. These social workers would say the same thing. They know how much contact is needed in order to provide effective service. So what they would be saying is, yes, this has to be in place but they have to have a smaller caseload in order to do it.

Another area that the Clinical Services Review names is: lack of planning with clients. When you look at clients as being children and families, they would definitely say yes, that they do not have the time to sit together with the families and with the children and to work out to the depth that is needed. They are into crisis management all the time. This is what I heard two years ago, and in this report that was finalized in December, which was probably about a year-and-a-half after my meeting, I hear the specialist, the consultant who did this report, saying the same thing.

The social workers would also agree with what is in this report when it says that little time with families – so, not having enough time with families - speaks to problems with the thoroughness of assessments of family needs. That is really important. They cannot fully assess the needs in the family and to try to work with the family on those needs if they do not have the time with the family, intense time with them, to figure out what those needs are.

So, when I read this report and when I hear that we are going to have a department, I say great, wonderful, because finally something may get put in place to meet the needs of the social workers that I met with a couple of years ago, and not just the needs of the social workers but their needs as they relate to the families and the children that they are connected to; because any of the social workers I have met, and I have met a lot, are people who care. They are individuals who are trained, they care about families, they care about the children, but, because of the stressful nature of what they have been working under, both in terms of a system where they did not fit - what they said to me, and I remember it, it is a common example but they used it, was they felt like square pegs in round holes inside of the Health and Community Services. Number one, being in a system where they didn't fit, and, number two, not having adequate resources, led them to behaving in a way that they knew, as social workers, wasn't professional. By that I mean, not that they were doing inappropriate things but they were not able, and are not able, to do the work that they know as social workers is necessary.

I am willing to bet that the majority of social workers working inside the Child, Youth and Family Services Division at this moment know everything that is in this report, and are frustrated because they cannot act the way they believe they should act. They know that combining a family-centered action plan and the individual support service plan into one service plan that is child centered and focused on the reduction of risk of harm to children – they know the two things have to go together. It takes time to work with families and to make those things work.

We have some places in the Province, and one particularly here in St. John's in my own district, actually, where a lot of work goes into trying to work with families. That is the Daybreak Program. It is a very impressive program, because the program is based on not just being a centre for children but being a centre for families and children. They work with families in need and they help the children and the families to do their plan together. They help the children's plan to work inside of the families' plan, and they work with the social workers and Child, Youth and Family Services as well, in trying to make sure that what they are doing in Daybreak with families and with children will work together both for the good of the children and the good of the families. I think that is something that is extremely important.

I noted in the bill, under clause 15, actually, that clause 15 repeals section 76 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act. The repealing that is done is done in order to put a whole new form in place, a review committee for each region of the Province that will be under the new department.

Clause 76.(2) says, "Each review committee shall be composed of (a) an employee of the department; (b) a parent of a child who is receiving or has received services under this Act or a predecessor Act; and (c) a member of each appropriate professional discipline employed in the region for which the committee is being appointed."

I think this review committee is extremely important. I am really pleased to see that the review committee - and review committees, there will be one for each region - will have on it the parent of a child who has received, or is still receiving services. That is extremely important because that understanding needs to be inside of any review that is going to be done.

I notice - I have asked questions about this, and I think I am correct - that the Clinical Services Review that was done for Child, Youth and Family Services did use an advisory committee to work with the consultant and a working group, but it is my understanding that there was not representation from a family that had actually received services under the Child, Youth and Family Services; nor were focus groups held with families.

I think one thing is extremely important as we put the new department together, and that is that in Child, Youth and Family Services it is neither the child as priority or the family as priority. The challenge to the department, and the challenge to the social workers, is to bring together the plans that are made for the child and the family, and when there is a particularly difficult case that all attempts are made to work those plans together.

That does not mean that a child will always be able to stay in their family. There will be times when a child may have to be taken out temporarily, and there still will be places where a child may have to be taken out permanently, but the goal should be working the plan for the family, the family services plan and the child focus plan together, that it is not one or the other.

We have a danger of that happening when you get a review that looks mainly at the issue from the perspective of the child without the family part brought in, because the two have to go together.

I am glad that the bill allows for family representation - and it is not just any family representation. It is the parent of a child who is receiving or has received services under the act or the previous act. It is extremely important.

There is another thing that I would like to speak to. I notice that the minister, when she was speaking, talked about creating a culture of excellence in putting the new department together. I have to say that I was delighted to hear her use that phrase because I thought about the Clinical Services Review. On page 3 of the Clinical Services Review it says that right now under Community and Health Services, the Child, Youth and Family Services Division has a lack of a clear purpose and a lack of a culture that supports and recognizes their work.

I think that is extremely important, so that sense of creating a new culture, a culture that understands the difficulty of the work that has to be done, and a culture that understands how much stress is in that job, that culture that appreciates that the child is valuable, the family is valuable, and the social worker is valuable, is extremely important and I was delighted to hear the minister talk about the culture of excellence.

I am interpreting that when she says a culture of excellence that she is talking about what I am talking about and what the Clinical Services Review is talking about. It is extremely important that we create a whole new culture. We have to ask questions. We have to ask why is it right now that there is such a high dropout rate of social workers from the child protection division, for example, a place where one needs continuity, a place where one needs experience. The minister has a job ahead of her, because she is going to have to ask those hard questions. She is going to have to find out the why of what is said in the Clinical Services Review.

There are some indicators in the review of the why, but that why is going to have to be asked much more clearly; because the loss of the worker with experience, the loss of the worker with that experiential knowledge of where to go in working with children and their families together is a loss to the whole system, and the loss of the experienced people works against the development of a culture continuing itself. Unfortunately, the culture that gets continued is a negative culture, or a culture with a lot of negative things in it rather than positive things.

So there is a lot of work ahead of the minister. I do not envy the minister her work, and what she has to do. I do not envy the workers inside of Child, Youth and Family Services, because they have one of the most difficult jobs in the public sector. I absolutely believe that. They have one of the most difficult jobs there is in the public sector, the social workers in particular, who work in Child, Youth and Family Services.

I am really looking forward to seeing if we in this Province can develop a family-centred, child-centred understanding of how this service should work, and that we put resources in that will allow an influx of social workers into this division, that will allow for the adequate resources so that we can make sure that recommendations like those from the Clinical Services Review can be put in place.

I have had conversations with the minister, and the minister has indicated to me that she wants to start having meetings with the front line workers. I think that is a really good place for her to start. I think it also will be important for the minister to meet with families, to go to a place like Daybreak and to sit down with Daybreak staff, and the families who have children in Daybreak and other centres that we have around the Province that are similar, and meet with families and listen to the families.

Like I said, that voice is missing from the Clinical Services Review, and I think that it would be extremely important for the minister, as the new department is being put together, that she hear that voice from the ground as well – the voice of the front line workers inside -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: If I may just clue up, please, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member, by leave.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Just to say that, in putting the new department together, having those meetings with front line workers but also having the meetings with the families of children who themselves are being served by Child, Youth and Family Services will ensure that the minister can move towards developing a department that will be based on a culture of excellence.

Those two legs have to be there: the front line workers as well as the voice and experience of the families with the children receiving services.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services. If she speaks now, she shall close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank my colleagues for their commentary regarding Child, Youth and Family Services and the direction that we will be taking as government with regards to this new department and the legislation today is a beginning step to enable us to be able to accept the responsibility within a line department for the authority right now which rests with the regional health authorities.

There was some commentary about concerns regarding the state or the affairs right now of Child, Youth and Family Services. One of the most, I guess helpful documents that we could ever have is going to be the clinical services review, not based on anecdotal information but certainly something that was done by professionals. It was an independent, audited-type review that provided us with some very well-informed information that will guide how we go as a department and how we will build the services that are necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I have also had the opportunity in the last couple of years to meet with frontline social workers from every region of the Province and their concerns regarding services. A lot of what they said, as indicated by the member from Signal Hill–Quidi Vidi, was reflected in the clinical services review.

The clinical services review has provided us with an opportunity to have an unbiased document, an independent document that was based on file audits as opposed to anecdotal information. As I said, I think it is a document that we will use for many years as we build this service. There are no quick fixes, and that is certainly noted in the Abell Report, that we need to be able to take our time and be able to build this department in a very integrated way.

So as we move through this piece of legislation, it will enable the new department to be able to assume the legal responsibility that will be necessary or the legal authority as we are able to either move a certain region into the line department or certain programs at any particular time. We will have a leadership team in place as well as a transition team and I am very anxious as the minister to be able to – as opposed to devoting, almost a full day now as Government House Leader and House Leader to the House of Assembly to dedicate full-time responsibility to this new department so we are able to move through the action plans and the time frames and certainly make the changes that are necessary.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I close debate in second reading on Bill 35.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, The Child Care Services Act, The Child, Youth And Family Services Act And The Regional Health Authorities Act be now read a second time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, The Child Care Services Act, The Child, Youth And Family Services Act And The Regional Health Authorities Regulations. (Bill 35)

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

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

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, The Child Care Services Act, The Child, Youth And Family Services Act And The Regional Health Authorities Regulations," 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.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 10, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 29)

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000." (Bill 29)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I am introducing a bill to fulfill a tax commitment contained in the 2009 Budget relating to the dividend tax credit under The Income Tax Act, 2000.

On Budget Day, I announced that the dividend tax credit for eligible dividends will be increased from 6.65 per cent to 9.75 per cent beginning for the 2009 taxation year. Eligible dividends are those paid from after tax income, which is neither affected to small business deduction nor create a refundable tax. The income has been subject to tax at the full corporate rates.

You will note in the bill, Mr. Speaker, that it shows a dividend tax credit of 31.42 per cent. While this appears on the surface to be inconsistent with the Budget announcement, it is in fact consistent. However, the explanation is not simple, Mr. Speaker, any time you are dealing with tax credits like this and then you are dealing with dividend tax credits, but I will do the best I can to explain it in a simple way.

Our provincial income tax system has the same design, tax base and operating rules as the federal income tax system. Dividends are normally reported on T5 slips. If a person receives $1,000 in eligible dividend income, the T5 slip records taxable income as $1,450, which is 45 per cent higher than the actual dividend. Dividends paid by corporations are paid after federal and provincial corporate income tax. The addition of the 45 per cent referred to as the gross-up effectively adds back those federal and provincial income taxes paid at the corporate level. The taxpayer then calculates tax payable on the higher amount, what is then (inaudible) on most of the "double tax" through the federal and provincial dividend tax credit mechanism.

So, Mr. Speaker, for most purposes, including the tax return, the dividend tax credit is expressed as the gross-up, the product of the gross-up amount times the dividend tax credit rate. For example, a $1,000 dividend is grossed up to $1,450, again that is 45 per cent, you multiply it by 9.75 per cent and it is equal to $141.38. Legislatively, however, the dividend tax credit is expressed as the product of a tax credit percentage times the amount of gross-up, that is $450. So it is now 31.42 per cent multiplied by $450, again it equals $141.38.

These two percentages, Mr. Speaker, are applied to different amounts leading to the same end result. While this appears to be complex and confusing, for consistency the Province merely follows the procedures established by the federal government. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the provincial income tax picks up much of the federal act by reference.

In Budget 2009, Mr. Speaker, the dividend tax credit, what was stated was as follows: effective for the 2009 taxation year the dividend tax credit rate and eligible dividends will be increased from 6.65 per cent to 9.75 per cent in order to bring these dividends more in line with other provinces.

So what we are attempting to do, Mr. Speaker, is make it consistent, apply the same rules and procedures as are applied by the federal government. Now, Mr. Speaker, we cannot speak for the federal government as to why there is a different administrative procedure than the legislated procedure. Again, referring back to the $1,450 multiplied by 9.75 per cent or the 31.42 per cent multiplied by $450, which gives you the same number. So there is a different procedure. However, Mr. Speaker, to deviate from the federal treatment would only add to the complexity and confusion. This measure is consistent with government's commitment to continually monitor the Province's tax competitiveness.

Now, Mr. Speaker, while I do not want to add further complexity to the issue, I should note that small businesses have a lower dividend tax credit amount. This is because small businesses have a lower corporate income tax. In Newfoundland and Labrador, the small business tax rate is 5 per cent compared to the general rate of 14 per cent. Small business owners control their own salary and dividend policy. Because of this flexibility, the integration principle of tax policy attempts to make the salary and dividend decision tax neutral. Again, Mr. Speaker, this principle is applied by grossing up the amount of the dividends that go into income and providing a dividend tax credit to theoretically remove the corporate income tax paid on income from which dividends are paid.

Mr. Speaker, Budget 2009 also had a number of other tax changes which were not included in this present bill. Last week, Mr. Speaker, I spoke about the Labour Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit. There was also, Mr. Speaker, in Budget 2009, eased taxation in the small business sector, a fundamental driver to the provincial economy. Effective January 1, 2009, Mr. Speaker, the corporate income tax small business threshold will increase from $400,000 to $500,000 dollars. Approximately 4,400 companies will benefit from this measure at a total cost of $200,000. This builds on two other recent threshold increases by this government when, prior to 2005, the threshold was $250,000, only half of today's level.

In 2008, Mr. Speaker, we increased the payroll tax exemption for businesses to $1 million. This eliminated the payroll tax for small businesses as well as many others. One very significant tax move in this Budget, Mr. Speaker, was the low income tax reduction. One of the early actions taken by this administration in the first term was the establishment of the low income tax reduction for the 2005 tax year. In 2007, this government indexed the LITR or low income tax reduction. In Budget 2009, we enhanced the LITR by increasing the income threshold from $13,511 to $15,911 for individuals, and from $21,825 to $26,625 for families.

This means, Mr. Speaker, to explain it, that an unmarried individual who has taxable income of $15,911 or less will pay no Newfoundland and Labrador personal income tax in 2009. An individual with income up to $19,399, Mr. Speaker, will receive a partial tax reduction. A family with income up to $26,625 will pay no Newfoundland and Labrador personal income tax in 2009. For families with income between $26,626 and $31,863, partial tax reductions will apply.

Mr. Speaker, over 31,500 individuals will be eligible for the low-income tax reduction program and can save as much as $544. Approximately 15,400 families are eligible for the low-income tax reduction and a family can save as much as $793. This tax initiative builds on other tax measures we have taken over the last number of years. As a government we recognize the difficulty that families and individuals have when you are on the lower income level.

Mr. Speaker, if I just come back to this one particular measure today, it is that a family can save $793. Many of us in this House with younger children, and all of us as MHAs, will recognize that that is money we are putting back into the hands of families to help them raise their children, to help deal with the expenses of school, of being involved in activities, and of buying clothes. It allows families, Mr. Speaker, to take their money and to use it to the benefit of them and their children.

When we look at individuals, Mr. Speaker, who can save as much as $544, these are, again, very significant amounts of money, and, as I will review in a second, when you add them up in relation to other measures we have taken it shows this government's commitment to not only addressing poverty, in terms of the Poverty Reduction Strategy, and all of the measures we have outlined therein, but also in families who are working and are having difficulty in making ends meet.

What we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is balance these fiscal restraint measures that we have imposed as a government in terms of our aggressive debt reduction, along with our need to say to individuals and to families: We recognize the difficult circumstances that exist out there and we will do our best to help alleviate these concerns.

Mr. Speaker, parents have enough pressures on them in this day and age, as we are all aware, without their having to worry about putting food on the table, without having to worry about being able to provide basic necessities of life such as clothing to their children. Hopefully, measures like this will benefit these families and individuals. I feel, as a minister, that this is a very, very good measure in terms of the lower income reduction. Mr. Speaker, these enhancements, however, have not been included in this bill, as they are implemented by regulations.

Mr. Speaker, again to emphasize this government's commitment to low income earners, I am just going to review, quite briefly, some of the other measures that we have taken.

When we were first elected, Mr. Speaker, there was a $100 rebate for heating oil, but not electric heating, available to about 10,700 families with an income up to approximately $21,000. This year the rebate is for $200 for electricity, $300 for heating fuel, and $400 in Coastal Labrador. The full benefit is available for families with income up to $35,000, and partial benefits are available for families with an income up to $40,000. Seventy-six thousand families are eligible for the rebate.

When this government took office, Mr. Speaker, the seniors' benefit was $350 for a single or widowed senior with income up to $14,000, and was $700 for a married senior couple with income up to $20,000. The program cost $7.7 million. In 2009, a single or widowed senior with income up to $25,983 will qualify for a benefit of $798, and the same benefit is available to a senior couple. Partial benefits are available for income up to $31,863. The cost in 2009, Mr. Speaker, will be about $28 million.

To assist low income families, improvements have also been made to the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit, and the Mother Baby Nutrition Supplement.

Mr. Speaker, this government has embarked upon an ambitious strategy to move from a Province with one of the highest rates of poverty in the country, to the one with the lowest. The Newfoundland and Labrador Poverty Reduction Strategy has been nationally recognized, and other provinces are now trying to emulate our model. Changes to the tax system, Mr. Speaker, particularly those targeted to low income earners, are among the initiatives that will move us along toward our goal.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, the tax reductions and credits are but one element of a broader program to reduce and eliminate poverty. Other things include the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program Access Plan, which began in 2006. The Access Plan, Mr. Speaker, provides prescription drug coverage for individuals with a net income up to $19,000, couples up to $21,000, and families, including single parents, up to $30,000.

While government has made investments in poverty reduction, perhaps the most meaningful and lasting way to improve lives is to ensure that people have an opportunity to work for a good wage.

Mr. Speaker, the election that took place in October, 2007 - I guess it is now - is one that all of us would have heard similar themes. We would have heard - I know in my district as I went from house to house I heard themes of the need to help our seniors; the need to help our families who are working and still having difficulties making ends meet; the need to improve social programs so that everyone could benefit from the right to have access to education, to medical programs and to quality health care. So what we have tried to do since that election is build on the steps that we have taken during our first mandate, but, Mr. Speaker, it takes time and it takes money.

Now, one of the difficulties that we had in this year's Budget, having just come back from a Finance Ministers' meeting in Ottawa yesterday, I can say that in this Province we have taken steps that are unheard of in the other provinces. During the particularly good times of very high oil we had began to negotiate with our unions. While we talk about tax reductions and while we talk about tax incentives, we must never forget that our raises to the public service have put monies in the pockets of people. So not only, Mr. Speaker, are we reducing taxes, we are putting more money in the pockets of people.

When we look at, Mr. Speaker, how pleased I think everyone in this Province was to avert a nurses' strike. Well, we have made our nurses competitive now which is what they wanted with other parts of Canada, and especially east of Ontario. But, Mr. Speaker, we are now talking 27 per cent increases for senior nurses and 31 per cent increases over four years. These numbers were unheard of. So along with our tax reductions, our various rebates, our putting monies into the hands of lower-income families through tax reductions, we are also giving wage increases. We have also moved towards, as I just indicated a minute ago, increasing the minimum wage.

Mr. Speaker, so when you look at all of these steps, you take our Poverty Reduction plan, you take our seniors plans, you look at our tax reductions and then you look at the raising of the minimum wage. Mr. Speaker, we committed, as a government, to developing a plan to achieve the increases to minimum wage in a predictable and incremental manner because we can never forget that we have employers out there who have to be given the time to adjust, to be aware that these changes are going to take place and to take the steps that they deem necessary.

On January 1, 2009, Mr. Speaker, the minimum wage was raised by fifty cents to $8.50 –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind all hon. members that we should keep our comments relevant to the bills that are being debated on the House of Assembly floor, the Chamber floor, and I ask the hon. the minister to keep his comments relevant.

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

I certainly will, but the point I was making here, is when you look at a dividend tax credit there can be an argument: well, a dividend tax credit benefits the rich because who else gets dividends when you are investing in companies? What I am trying to also point out is that we are making steps to address the situations that arise for not only the poor in terms of our Poverty Reduction Strategy, but also middle class and lower-income earners because we can never forget that the people who are paying taxes also have to be given the benefits that come with that.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for digressing somewhat but I was simply trying to outline that even though we are dealing with a bill like this, that by its very nature is very complex, it is also offset by all the steps that we are taking to benefit all members of our society. So, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the – and I will speak to some of these matters later today on another bill in terms of the – we have the loan guarantees bill.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I just want to make a couple of more points in terms of this particular bill. Is that the Income Tax Act and trying to comply with the Income Tax Act is always a difficult conundrum for governments, where you have a regime where there is federal tax and there is a regime where there is provincial tax. So what we have tried to do with the dividend tax credit is to ensure consistency with the federal regime, to take what is a very complicated, or what could be a very complicated tax credit and try to explain it in as simple terms as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to end by referring to, as I have indicated, a couple more of the taxes – as I go through the various kinds of tax incentives that are out there, there is also the reduction in taxes. Last year there was the reduction in the Retail Sales Tax on insurance premiums; again, a very popular move that also put money in the hands of the average person, or all members of our society.

There is the, Mr. Speaker, the reduction of personal income tax rates –

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

Again, I have to remind the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board that we are debating Bill 29, and I ask that he keep his comments relevant to the bill being debated on the Chamber floor.

MR. KENNEDY: I assume then, Mr. Speaker – and again, I am in no way questioning the authority or the ruling of the Chair, but I am assuming your ruling is essentially this is not a money bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has ruled on several occasions that money bills would be defined as those such as supply bills, or bills that would generate revenue to the Province, such as loan or tax bills. This, I do not think, would meet the definition of a tax bill as it is not generating revenue to the Province.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that clarification. I certainly accept your ruling.

Essentially I will conclude, then, on this particular bill. Bill 29 simply reads: Paragraph 20(b) of the Income Tax Act, 2000 is amended by striking out the numbers and symbol "21.43%" and substituting the numbers and symbol "31.42%".

What I have tried to do, Mr. Speaker, today is to establish that there is no inconsistency here between the bill and the Budget and that, even though there are different ways of figuring out the numbers, the numbers are consistent and they are consistent with the federal regime.

With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your patience and I will conclude my comments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I will just have a few words with respect to Bill 29. I do not intend to belabour the issue. Quite frankly, it is complex in the sense of understanding it. As the minister says, unless you are a person who is familiar with accounting and taxation, some of these bills that come before the House, of course, are quite difficult to understand if you do not have that kind of background. I personally certainly do not have that kind of background and we need, in a course of researching, the assistance of researchers and people over in the Department of Finance and Treasury Board to tell us on occasion what this is about.

That makes the process work. Because, no more than Joe and Martha, my good friends who watch this, I always say Joe Chesterfield, I am sure he got lost in the minister's explanation as well as I did. That is no disrespect to the minister. That just goes to refer to the complexity of the issue we are dealing with, but that happens.

Of course, because we are dealing with a tax issue, whether it is the imposition of a tax or whether it is the levying of a tax, or whether it is the increase or the reduction of a tax, it impacts people's lives. All taxes impact people's lives in one way or another, and different classes of people if I might use that word.

For example, this bill right here, Bill 29, is going to do nothing for the average citizen in our Province - when I say average I mean in terms of income - because this bill may help people who have a fairly significant income but I do not know - I would venture to guess, and it would be interesting if the minister could provide us with the detail as to what percentage of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians actually avail of a dividend tax credit. That would be nice to know. We are here talking about a dividend tax credit.

By the way, as pointed out by the Leader of the NDP to me earlier when we had a discussion, it was confusing because there are only two clauses to this act: one dealing with a tax rate and the other one talking about a date of proclamation.

Then, when you read the Explanatory Note, it throws you off because nowhere in the Explanatory Note does it explain that it is a credit we are talking about. We are not talking about imposing a tax against anyone; we are talking about a credit to those persons who get or pay dividends, or receive dividends. It is a credit to them.

That was a bit confusing, but we got past that hump anyway and now we understand that this is a benefit that some people are going to get. The question is: How Hmany people in our Province are going to get it? What the government is doing, earlier in their budget they said there will be an increased dividend tax credit. This is the piece of legislation that is going to give life and effect to that decision, once it gets passed here and receives royal assent. So again, the question is - and the minister interspersed this tax amongst many other things that we do with our tax base.

For example, he talked about, and I do not mean to get irrelevant, but in terms of the things you pay for from your taxes, we have a lot of government programs that get paid for from taxes. For example, we heard about the heating and electrical rebates that get paid. Government raised the money through taxes and they pay them out. That is one of the programs. There are all kinds of other tax benefits. Government sometimes used our taxes to, and incomes and revenue sources to top up pension funds, for example, like we did in the case of our Unfunded Pension Liabilities. They use it of course for the Poverty Reduction Strategy, and that is fair ball as the minister suggested, but this one here deals specifically with giving a credit to people who receive a dividend.

Again, albeit you have to do this to make it law, it would be interesting if the government can give us the information and the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board can tell us how many people in this Province actually receive a dividend tax credit. I do not know, quite frankly, and it would be interesting to know. We could not find out that piece of information. What percentage of all taxpayers in this Province will benefit from this piece of legislation? I am sure the minister and his officials must have that information at his fingertips. It would be relevant to know and interesting to know that in the context of all the other programs and so on that the government has and what they use our taxes for, what is the impact of this one? By giving out this dividend tax credit, how much less money is going to be in the pot to use for other sources, for other purposes? It would be interesting to know that. Are we talking here a few hundred dollars or are we talking here a few thousand dollars on the provincial treasury, or are we talking here millions of dollars that is being given in terms of credits here by the time it all washes out?

The minister, too, talking about the reasoning behind giving this tax credit, that they have a ‘furtherment' or the fulfillment of a government undertaking that we are going to do things to put more money in people's pockets, to make it such that people do not pay as much money out of their pockets. That is all tied in with the tax piece that we have here, but of course that depends on the financial situation you find yourself in at any given point, whether we are going to find ourselves here in the House having a piece of legislation that deals with an increase or a decrease in taxes, and I refer of course back to a few years ago. This government talks about, we have done this and we have done something else, and no problem. Some of these are very good programs, particularly the Poverty Reduction Program which makes use of a fair chunk of the government resources and taxes that they bring in, no question about it.

Government was not always in this situation. It is so flexible and it fluctuates and you have absolutely no control over it. For example, back in 2003, when the government changed and they brought in their first budget, we all in this Province knew the impact of taxes. Now taxes come in different forms. It could be a tax bill. It might be in the form of a fee. Government raises its money in different ways, and we all know back then what happened when it came to fees. We knew that everything in this Province from a birth certificate to a death certificate, and everything in between, got raised. That fee, that tax that is imposed on people. In fact, we even had the polar bear tax. Back then they increased the polar bear tax. We had, I think, three polar bears a year being taken by Aboriginal peoples in the North, and we still increased – but that is because government of the day felt they had to do that because they could not provide for certain services.

Lo and behold, what happens? The most major, significant, economic thing, financial thing that happened to this Province back then was the price of a barrel of oil went through the roof. We were looking at, I do believe, figures of in the early low $30s, when it came about first. Then all of a sudden, we all know that as of last year, in 2008, the first part of 2008, the price of a barrel of oil hit just about $150 a barrel – which, of course, was very, very helpful to anybody trying to provide programs in this Province.

Based upon those kinds of revenues, you could go out and do your poverty reduction strategies easier. You could go out and top up your pension plans easier. You could give your public sector wage increases much easier than when you do not have those revenues. That is true! Anybody, of course, who is civic minded, anybody who is humane, anybody who wants to be half-decently as governors, are going to do that. You are not going to keep the coffers stuffed with cash and not give it to the people if the money is there.

The government were very fortuitous to be in that situation, but they did not raise the price of a barrel of oil from $30 to $150. Someone else did that. Look what happens, in the mid-2008, as they say – I will not use the vernacular – but as they say, the bottom came out of her; unbeknownst to the government again. Again, government had to – we end up, I think somewhere it is being predicted this year in the budget, $750 million deficit. All on a whim, of somebody; not the government, not the Government of Canada, not the Government of the United States, but that was a set of circumstances that came together again to put this government in a situation where they had to say: Whoa, just a minute. We have all those things we still want to do, we would like to do them, but they never had the cash to do them.

Now hopefully by the end of this year - and I predict the minister will be in this House, no doubt, in the fall saying: It looks like we are going to be okay. We thought we were going to have a deficit of $750 million, but we are going to be okay because since the budget was given – and that was based on $50 a barrel - I think, virtually, every day since the Budget was given, a barrel of oil has gone up above $50. In fact, it was trading just last week in excess of $60. So there is no doubt, we will not have, barring another catastrophe, a deficit at the end of this year. That $750 million deficit, no doubt, that will be gone come March 31 of 2010, I would predict, because we are over $50 a barrel and have been. Anybody who is watching the TSX, the stock exchange and the NTV nightly news, we are well over that.

Government will find itself in a position where they can still pay the bills and they can still fulfill some of these promises here. Hopefully, we will never see a day again when the price of a barrel of oil goes down below $50, because there is a great need to still keep putting all of this money into these programs. Nobody will deny that it is good to help someone else. That is what it is all about. That is why you are a government because you want to try to help people. Now we might get into some arguments and differences of opinion sometimes as to whether you go far enough, we might have some differences of opinion as to who was responsible for putting the money in the pot in the first place. Like there are some that would suggest that the previous Liberal governments had something to do, for example, with the pot as well –

MR. SPEAKER (Collins): Order, please!

The Chair would like to remind the hon. the Opposition House Leader, that while it is difficult to draw a fine line between what is relevant and what is not when we are talking about the finances of money and taxation, he seems to be drawing into a general conversation about taxes and finances. I would ask him if he would remain relevant to the issue at hand.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I respect the rulings of the Chair.

I am talking here about how the government professes and will use the tax dollars that it brings in. Now I would think Bill 29 is a piece of a tax bill. We are talking about increasing a dividend tax credit right here, which is going to help some people by the way.

I am sure my colleague in the NDP, a member of this House, is going to have some comments about who it helps and to what extent it helps, or is this where government should be putting its focus with this dividend tax bill, but that is what it is about, it is a credit. People out there in TV land who are watching this, I am sure they will hear the comments and that is the question they are going to ask themselves.

There are two purposes here. Number one, we have to understand what Bill 29 is all about. We have to understand what a dividend tax credit is all about. The people out in TV land would like to know: Is this something that helps them? I never heard any explanations from the minister yet in the course of his introduction in second reading. I have not heard any explanations from this minister as to how many people in our Province this is going to help.

What level of income do you have to have to benefit from this dividend tax credit? That would be an interesting piece of information to have, Mr. Speaker, because then everybody who is out watching it on TV could say: Does this help me or does this help Joe? What level of income do you have to have to have the benefit from this? That is not saying, by the way, that everybody deserves to be helped when it comes to tax credits or tax benefits and so on, tax rates. It would be interesting just to know where it sits in the scheme of things.

Mr. Speaker, I will not belabour the point, but that is a valid piece of information that we would certainly like to have and we ask the minister if he would be kind enough to provide it to us once he gets an opportunity. If not now, it would be in committee stage.

I also notice, from clause 2 here, that the proclamation date or the coming-into-force of this act will be on January 1, 2009. Normally, of course, that is not the case with a piece of legislation either, but we can certainly appreciate why that would be. If this is going to be a tax issue that people are going to use for the taxation year 2009, it is my understanding that is, of course, why you would have to make it retroactive to January 1, 2009. If we just left it to be law as of today, May 26, well, of course, that benefit that would come out of this would only be good from that point on. We have no problem whatsoever with seeing that January 1 is the appropriate date here for this particular piece of legislation.

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

Thank you.

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

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

I am happy to have a moment to speak to Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.

Of course, we first heard in the Budget, when we got the Budget documents in March, that this tax credit was going to be brought in, because the budget said, that effective for the 2009 taxation year the dividend tax credit rate on eligible dividends will be increased from 6.65 per cent to 9.75 per cent in order to bring these dividends more in line with other provinces. The Budget document noted that the anticipated tax savings would be $1.3 billion. That is the tax savings for whoever the people are who would be people who would get dividends in large corporations. This is what this bill covers. It covers people who are working in large corporations in particular positions who, on top of their salary, also get dividends from the company. We now have a change to the amount of credit that they can get from those dividends. That means that they will be able to take a certain amount of money off of what they owe the government in income tax. That is what a tax credit means. There are some people who do not make enough money to understand tax credit, so that is why I am explaining it.

In the Income Tax Act, currently, it says that people who get dividends on top of their salaries get a 21.43 per cent tax credit that they can claim. They can claim 21.43 per cent of their dividends and that can be subtracted from how much money they owe the government. With this bill, what happens is people who get dividends are going to be able to take 31.42 per cent of dividends that they receive, and they will be able to take 31.42 per cent off of what they owe the government in income tax. The people who get the dividend for whom this bill changes, they will benefit, and it will cost the government $1.3 million to do it according to the Budget documents.

One has to ask why the government is bothering to do this at this moment. Why are they giving this tax credit at this moment? Were people asking for it? Did somebody all of a sudden say: Let's give another break to people who are high earners? Because I would like to point out that it is high earners who would be people who would most likely be getting dividends on top of their salaries in working for large corporations.

When the Budget of 2007-2008 did tax cuts, in other words the actual cut in the amount of tax somebody had to pay because the percentages went down, it was people earning over $250,000 who really benefited from the tax cuts of 2007-2008. In our Province, we have approximately 840 taxpayers who earn over $250,000, where their taxable earnings are over $250,000. We note taxable earnings because there are other earnings and other monies that are not taxable, but their taxable earnings, that net income that is taxable, only 840 people over $250,000.

Those people, over the tax cuts that were given by this government, in one year would receive a $16,600 cut to how much money they pay the government. I have worked that out. With 840 taxpayers getting a break of $16,600, just that alone costs the government $14 million, for people who, I am putting forward, did not need the break. Now some of those people, probably not all - we do not know how many people are going to benefit from this new dividend tax credit. We have been asking, we have been searching, we have been trying to find out from the Finance Department an estimate of how many people would benefit but we have not been able to come up with a number. We suspect that it is not a lot. We suspect it is a small number. Even if - and this certainly would not be the case - the 840 taxpayers who are in the over $250,000 bracket, even if all of them benefited from this then they would get another benefit of over $1,500 on top of the tax breaks they have already had. I would say, if you are earning a lot of money in this Province right now, this government is your friend because it is continuing to give tax breaks to people who, in actual fact, do not need them. They are doing fine without the tax break. These are gifts that are being given by this government. I would say that a lot of them are very happy.

It is interesting that this dividend tax credit is not related to any federal action, although the federal government did create a new rate a few years ago and some provinces followed suit. One does not have to do it because the federal government did it. These people benefited first from a federal government change in the tax credit, in the dividend tax credit, and now they are going to benefit again from the unilateral action by this provincial government, something that this government did not have to do. They say that they are doing it, and this is what we have heard in asking questions, to have a competitive or similar dividend tax credit rate with other provinces. That is the only detail that has been provided.

We are not aware of other provinces that have changed their rate in the last number of years, so why does this government think that it is necessary to do this in order to become more competitive? Do they really think that somebody, if a company is going to come here - a large company is going to come here - that it is not going to come because our dividend tax credit is slightly lower than in another province? I do not think so. I really do not think so.

We have here a dividend tax credit which is going to benefit a small number of people in this Province, people who do not need it. Some would say, well, it is only $1.3 million. If we took that $1.3 million and spread it out to people who are earning $16,000 – not getting $16,000 in a tax break, but who are earning $16,000 – then that $1.3 million maybe could bring up by another few hundred dollars the benefit that they got in this year's budget.

As the Minister of Finance pointed out when he was speaking, an individual with an income of $16,000 will save $544 annually. Imagine if that person could save $1,000 annually, instead of the person who is earning $250,000.

Obviously, this is a bill that is going to go ahead. I am going to vote against it. That will not mean anything in this House, of course, but I will vote against it on principle, because I do not think it is a bill that is necessary, and I hope that people are aware of who it is that benefits from some of these bills that are being put forward by this government.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, whenever, as a government, we are looking at tax measures, we have to look at all aspects of our society. We have to look at the different income brackets. We have to look at attracting business. We have to look at corporate tax measures. At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, we can never forget that, in making ourselves competitive, we have to have a competitive tax regime. That is what something as simple as this does. It makes us competitive. It makes us consistent with what is going on in the rest of the country.

In that respect, Mr. Speaker, as we continue to look across this country for consistency, for integration of our tax regime, our tax measures, with those under the federal system, situations develop where we have to address the inconsistencies.

What this dividend tax credit does, it simply makes it consistent with what is going on in the rest of the country and we are simply following the procedures, as I indicated, established by the federal government. The provincial Income Tax Act, in fact, picks up much of the federal act by reference.

This is simply not meant to be a bill that has enormous ramifications for hundreds of thousands of people. It does, however, address a need in the system, and that is what we are doing here.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I close debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 29 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 29)

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

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

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 29)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 11, seconding reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Wild Life Act. (Bill 30)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded, second reading of An Act To Amend The Wild Life Act. (Bill 30)

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Wild Life Act." (Bill 30)

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

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, that Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Wild Life Act, be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand and just take a few minutes here to speak on this bill. It is an amendment. The management of the provincial inland fish resources is mandated to the federal government through the Canadian Constitution Act. This authority is used to set season dates, bag limits, tackle requirements, and to open waters for fishing. This Province owns the inland fish resources and has a mandate to licence anglers and to regulate the use of the resource once captured. For salmon, this involves licensing users and issuing tags.

Mr. Speaker, I think many people in the Province recognize the importance of this resource. Our rivers have long provided recreation activity for the residents of the Province. It has also provided income for many people, as we have outfitters and guides, and so on and so forth, that take the number of people we have who come to the Province to the rivers and they enjoy themselves. Of course, the reward of this is that these people will pay many dollars to come here and fish the Atlantic salmon, one of the greatest fish fighters in the world that people pride themselves on coming to catch.

We, as a government, certainly recognize that. A number of years back we committed to an $800,000 annual investment to ensure that we have more guardians on the river, to ensure that the protection of the resource is maintained to the extent that we possibly can. That was solely due to the fact that we want to protect that resource. Many of us who come from rural Newfoundland would recognize that many years ago there were salmon nets in the ocean. There were cod traps that were out there. The numbers of fish that were caught in those nets and cod traps were numerous, and that fishery is discontinued now. As such, we would hope that we would see an abundance of salmon in our rivers, then meaning more income for people who guide and work on those rivers.

Mr. Speaker, besides the environmental importance of a healthy inland fish resource, salmon and trout angling has that great economic and social benefit, as I have said, and we as a government are very much committed to a prudent and sustainable management of all these valuable resources and to working with key stakeholders to ensure sound management of our inland fish resources.

In 2005, the Wildlife Act was amended specific to section 27(1). The Department of Justice, however, has been advised by the Crown Attorney's Office that the current drafting of this new penalties section limits the new penalty to the violations of the act and does not apply to the violations of the regulations.

These amendments were enacted at the time to enhance the Province's inland fisheries enforcement and management program by providing stronger deterrents for those who participate in illegal inland fishery activities such as salmon poaching. It has been long recognized, Mr. Speaker, that we have challenges along that and we as a department, we as a government, want to do everything possible to limit poaching.

The enforcement, promotion and implementation of the wildlife regulations and guide regulations made under the authority of the Wild Life Act are part of the mandate of the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Justice through the Inland Fish Enforcement Program, and the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation through the promotion of tourism and outfitting.

Amendments to the Wild Life Act adopted a new penalty section, section 27.1, which saw the maximum penalty for inland fisheries violations increase from $500 to $5,000 or six months imprisonment or both. Through observations of the Crown prosecutors and the provincial judicial system it became apparent that despite that intent, the drafting of the amendments to the act in 2005 failed to make reference to the regulations. The interpretation in 2005 was that the reference to the Wild Life Act included the regulations. Subsequent analysis indicates this interpretation was flawed and, as a result, a slight amendment to the act is required. The amendment we are now putting forward will simplify several complex issues facing enforcement officers and address court concerns regarding wording.

All of our efforts, Mr. Speaker, will culminate to help us realize our long-term goal, that being the sustainability of our natural heritage and our pristine environment for many generations that will follow us. We must continue to focus on the delicate balance that we need to achieve, always ensuring that we are stewards of our environment in many areas and on many different levels.

There is not much more that I can say, Mr. Speaker, other than to repeat a couple of things I said from the outset; that we as the people of the Province recognize our inland waters and the importance that they are to us as a people and to us as an industry, through the outfitting and licensing and angling sector. Again we, as a government, saw fit to protect that resource to the tune of $800,000 and to ensure that we have more people on the rivers and that they protect to the extent they can, and to garner against such activities as poaching and netting. This, Mr. Speaker, will fine tune the act and protect those interests.

I look forward to any questions that will be brought and I look forward to the debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I just want to take a few minutes with regard to Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Wild Life Act. I do not think I have all that many questions for the minister, but I just want to make a few comments. I can assure you they are not going to be too long.

As the minister stated, back in 2005 government amended the Wild Life Act to include other sections and did quite a bit of work on it at that time. If you look through that act, Mr. Speaker, the one that was amended in 2005, you will notice that it is a very detailed piece of legislation that was done. It goes into many issues with regard to what is a non-resident, open season, and various means to get an animal, whether it is through snaring, trapping, shooting or what have you. It goes into issues, I guess, pertaining to our wild life officers; how they can collect evidence, their guidelines, how they can seize or confiscate various animals or seizure of guns and what have you, with regard to evidence and search, suspension, cancellation and so on.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, as the minister said, is really a simple amendment. It is just to change some language there, because if you look at the bill, when it comes to clause 27.1 it says, "A person who (a) contravenes a provision of or a requirement or obligation imposed upon him or her…", and that is the end of it. Under the new piece of legislation it is the same wording that I just read, but in addition to that after the word act it says, "…or the regulations." That comes into play under 27.1, under both (a), (b), and (c).

As the minister stated, under that section 27(1) it also outlines: if you are found guilty of an offence it is a fine of $5,000 or imprisonment of not more than six months.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to this piece of legislation, really it stipulates that a person be punished for infractions with reference to the Wild Life Act and not regulations with regard to the Federal Fisheries Act.

There is no doubt about it, that we are glad to see that this is being addressed so that our people employed with the Inland Fisheries Enforcement division in the summertime see good product from the work that they do, Mr. Speaker. We know that they go through a very difficult time. The amendment proposed by government ensures that a person who is caught poaching can be punished under our Inland Fisheries Enforcement Program .

I guess from time to time, with this amendment - if this amendment would not occur, there have been cases where individuals have gotten off with poaching due to the weakness, probably, in the language, and due to the fact that charges were brought upon individuals by forestry and wildlife protection officers, and not the federal fisheries officers. With the wording regulation entered into this clause now that would not happen anymore. Clearly, the change, Mr. Speaker, in the language was needed, because we hear so much negative information about poaching, in our office, and I am sure each and every member hears the same thing.

It was only last week that the Outfitters' Association told us about problems in the Grey River area, where poaching takes place with the caribou hunting and so on, and the comments that they made. When people go in the country, whether they are poaching for salmon or some inland trout species, it also gives them an opportunity, I guess, to poach caribou illegally. As the minister stated, this is a resource, whether it is fishing, whether it is trout or salmon fishing, or the caribou, that is very beneficial to our Province and many of the outfitters in our Province have word on that.

We know that officers working in this area have complained, to my understanding, both through Natural Resources and Justice, the two departments responsible for the Inland Fisheries Program, that they are seeing evidence of poaching of both caribou and fish in this area, but they feel powerless, sometimes, to do anything about it. With this change in the regulations, I believe there will be more back up for them when they should take someone to court.

We have been after them for some time now to get a copy of the Marshall Report, which deals with many of those issues with inland waters, but when we received it much of it was blacked out. Hopefully, one of those days we will get a copy of that and see what is taking place there.

Mr. Speaker, as the minister said, there is not much to say on this. It is just a tightening up of the regulations. It is an amendment. It is fairly simple. We are wondering, I guess, why the regulations were brought in, in 2005, and for what reasons they were not put in there at that time.

There is one other closing comment I would like to make. I know the minister referred to rebuilding our resources for this particular industry, whether it is salmon or trout fishing. I do not know, maybe there is a program in government, and I do not mind stating if there is. Maybe the minister can tell me that. I hear from people from time to time - and not altogether the salmon fishery, but the various species of trout - wondering is there a program where we can get young trout through the aquaculture industry and have them placed in some of those ponds to build back the stocks; not only where there is poaching going on and people who go in fishing with regards to taking over the limits, but to help rebuild the stocks in the various ponds in our Province. I can assure you that would be a great benefit, not only to our residents but to the people who travel here from outside the Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is my closing comments with regard to Bill 30, on the Act To Amend The Wild Life Act, and to say to the minister that we will be supporting it.

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

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

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you. Mr. Speaker.

I thank the member opposite for his comments on this. As both of us kind of said now, really this is about closing a loophole that occurred when some revisions were being made to the act in 2005.

I know the member opposite has said it, and I will say it again, that to us as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we can never underestimate the importance of having healthy rivers and healthy ponds in which we can go to catch our few trout. Just this past weekend, it is pretty evident by the number of people who go into the stores and buy a fishing rod and take their family and go along the pond sides and catch a few trout.

Again, the importance of the salmon to us as a people but equally important that it is an economic generator, a huge economic generator I would content, based on the fact that we collect licenses from fishermen who fish our rivers. That we have an outfitting business that has salmon fishing as a very important integral part of their business and that the people who frequent the rivers end up in accommodations in some of our tourism establishments along the way, along with the outfitters, and they do indeed go to the local stores, buy and garner a number of supplies.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I close debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Wild Life Act. (Bill 30)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 30 has now been read a second time.

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

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Wild Life Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 30)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 12, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act." (Bill 32)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Government Services, that Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act, be now read a second time.

First of all, I would like to thank the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board for giving me the opportunity to introduce this bill. This amendment is being brought forward to assist and support the community of Natuashish in its enforcement of the alcohol free bylaw. The Innu community of Natuashish, on the north coast of Labrador, is home to the Mushuau Innu with a population of about 725 people.

Natuashish became a reserve under the Indian Act in 2004, after it relocated from Davis Inlet in 2002. Davis Inlet was known for its significant social problems as well as substance abuse, including gas sniffing by children. The leadership of today in Natuashish wanted to do more to help assist its people with the abuse of alcohol and change the negative image hanging over them.

On January 31, 2008, the Mushuau Innu First Nation adopted a bylaw which prohibits intoxicants within the Natuashish Reserve. Natuashish is the first and only community in our Province that currently prohibits alcohol. In February of 2008, the Natuashish Innu leadership met with me and the Minister of Justice at the time, to discuss issues related to the enforcement of the bylaw. They were looking for ways that the Province may assist with the enforcement of this new bylaw.

Upon review of the Liquor Control Act, it was determined that the proposed amendment would help with this enforcement. This will become another tool for the enforcement of the bylaw in the alcohol-free community of Natuashish.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, which amends the Liquor Control Act, is aimed at preventing the movement of liquor to communities which have banned alcohol. At the current time, the only community is Natuashish which has this ban in place.

The bill adds section 73.1 to the act. It would make it unlawful for a person, either personally or through the intervention or with the assistance of another person, order for delivery, send, bring, or carry liquor or a package containing liquor from a person or place in the Province to a person who may not lawfully purchase or consume liquor or to a prohibited area as defined. It was determined that the effectiveness of Natuashish's bylaw could be bolstered by the amendment tabled here today, so that a greater role would be provided for the authorities to prevent the flow of liquor into that community.

Mr. Speaker, this bill demonstrates government's support for Natuashish and any other community that may want to become alcohol free. Upon conviction of the movement of liquor to unauthorized persons or places such as Natuashish, fines of up to $1,000 could apply, as well as imprisonment of up to twelve months.

In order to facilitate the enforcement of the new provision, the search and seizure provisions of the act have been expanded. As most people may be aware, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects individuals from unreasonable search and seizure. The proposed amendment, consistent with the current provision, is compliant with the Charter. Currently, when an officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that a person is contravening the act, the officer may, with a search warrant, search for and seize contraband. The new provision expands that authority to search for and seize alcohol referred to in section 73.1; again, with a warrant issued by a judge.

In certain circumstances, such as when there is danger of losing evidence, a search may be undertaken without a warrant. However, in those circumstances the onus will be upon the officer to show that there were grounds to obtain the warrant and exigent circumstances existed where it was not practical to obtain a warrant. For example, Mr. Speaker, the Happy Valley-Goose Bay Airport is one area in particular that was identified as being a conduit for alcohol getting into Natuashish. The amendment to the Liquor Control Act will add a provision prohibiting a person from ordering, sending, bringing or carrying any package containing liquor from anywhere in the Province to a person who may not lawfully purchase or consume liquor or to a place where liquor may not be lawfully kept, such as Natuashish.

Between the period of January 31, 2008 and February 4, 2009, approximately 207 charges were laid in Natuashish for offences related to possession or the supplying of alcohol in the community. The legislative amendments are expected to improve compliance by addressing the flow of liquor.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard many positive stories coming out of Natuashish over the past year that I feel some credit can and should be given to the ban on alcohol. Grocery sales are up at the local grocery store. Residents are spending more money on necessities, rather than alcohol. More residents are participating in land-based programs. Attendance at school has improved greatly and parents are becoming more involved in their children's education. Residents are participating in sports and other activities in their community. Intoxicated persons are not seen out in public as was happening before. Crime is down, as well as domestic violence. More residents are fighting their addiction to alcohol and staying sober.

Last year, I attended the high school graduation of two Innu youth who were the first graduates to graduate from the school in Natuashish in years. This year, Mr. Speaker, there are five graduates graduating from the high school in Natuashish.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: Their ceremony will take place this Friday, May 29. I must say the community is beaming with pride.

Mr. Speaker, travelling back to my home community this past weekend, I had the privilege of meeting a five-year-old girl from Natuashish who was returning home with her mom on the same flight that I was on. Lenita was a very friendly, talkative, healthy and happy young girl. We talked about school. We shared snacks and then it was not long before little Lenita was asleep in her mom's arms. Let us support Bill 32 for children like little Lenita who are now living in a healthier and happier community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly am pleased to rise and speak to this particular bill today.

No doubt about it, it is a bill of tremendous importance in the Aboriginal communities in our Province, in particular in Northern Labrador, and to have these provisions enforced under the act.

Mr. Speaker, I know that these provisions, today, directly affect the community of Natuashish, and this is a community, I think, that bears being given a tremendous amount of recognition for the kind of leadership that they have taken over the years, the kind of leadership they have taken to be able to rehabilitate its residents, to be able to overcome a lot of the plights that they have had and challenges that they have had with social programs and social issues, and to try and deter people from becoming addicted to alcohol and other substances that have often been seen as the ruination of many of their people and families over the years.

As we know, Mr. Speaker, going back through the years, we have seen this community having to battle with higher rates of suicide, and the communities that surrounded them, than most other regions, not only of the Province, but of the country per capita. We have seen their leadership not only lead by example but by encouragement and support to others. I say that because a number of the leaders I have known and worked with in this community over the years knew what it was like to be able to battle poverty, to battle social injustice, and to battle alcoholism themselves. They were able to rise above it and they set good examples in the community for others to follow; examples that they are still setting today in the various capacities that they hold.

In February of this year, Mr. Speaker, Natuashish celebrated its first year of a booze ban, I guess is what they refer to it as in the community. What did it mean to a small rural isolated Innu reserve in Labrador? People might look at that and they might say this is not a big issue, it is not an overly significant issue, but what is big about it is the result that it brings.

Just look at what people had to say. They said that the crime rates have dropped in the community. There are fewer charges being laid against residents. The community itself seems healthier; it seems more alert. They talked about the fact that gas sniffing is one of the things that they have seen a big change in. The numbers of people who are taking to gas sniffing is reduced. The quality of housing has risen in the community, and, therefore, the standard of living is rising. Mr. Speaker, all of the things that they have seen over the past year as a result of this ban in the community have been positive, the impact has been positive, both on the people and on the community as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that when they went to the vote, back in February 2008 I think it was, as to whether Natuashish would be a dry town, they won that vote by a very small margin. I guess, like many towns, there is a reluctancy to bring in new change, new rules, and especially something that is as important as this, in terms of restricting people, in terms of what they can bring into the community, and what they can consume within the community. They did win the vote, and they became the first dry town in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think, Mr. Speaker, their motivation speaks for itself, because they did not just bring in the law in the town, and they did not bow down to pressure – because there has been pressure over the past year. Anyone who lives in or near or visits this community will know, as I am sure the hon. MHA would know, that there has been a lot of pressure placed on the leadership in the community because of this. There have been people who have been adamantly opposed, and have been very vocal about that opposition.

It is really difficult, sometimes, to even have the courage in a small town, with only a few hundred people, to be able to continue to enforce those kinds of very strong, stringent regulations that carry with them punishments for people who break the law. Mr. Speaker, I think it has shown, not only by the comments of the leadership themselves, but they have shown to be a community that is in less crisis today because of it. They have shown to be a community, Mr. Speaker, that has seen their crime rate drop from something like 80 per cent down to about 50 per cent, which is a tremendous improvement in the crime rate in this community. They have seen more engagement from people in the community, more engagement from people who want to make it a healthier community, a more active community.

I just think about the last year, Mr. Speaker, when I watched the leaders in Natuashish compete in Cain's Quest, one of the biggest snowmobile events in Labrador, giving recognition and providing inspiration for young people in the community who someday would want to take on that challenge and conquer it as well. I have seen children in the community participate in drama and theatre and talk about the issues that have been important in their community and how they are overcoming them. Mr. Speaker, I have seen the community, this year, come together to support one of their own who was out doing a walk through Labrador to support diabetes and raise the awareness of diabetes in Aboriginal people; another reason, Mr. Speaker, to have an alcohol ban in the community, as it is only increasing the health issues of people who are already at high risk and vulnerable for certain diseases like diabetes.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a community that, although it has had challenges, although there have been many times when I am sure it was easier for those who rose to leadership positions to walk away, as opposed to stay and provide that guidance and steadiness that was required, they have certainly done it. It has taken a lot of courage to tackle the issues of substance abuse and alcoholism in that community.

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about just a ban here. When you are talking about banning alcohol, you are also talking about restricting it to someone who has a disease, because alcoholism is a disease. It is a sickness, like anything else, and once you become addicted to it, it is not as easy as just removing it from access to those people. There are a lot of other things that are required. That means more addictions services, more counselling, more family support, and more community support. Mr. Speaker, they have been able to increase those kinds of services in the community and, again, that speaks to the commitment and the leadership. They did not just go out and remove and put a ban in on alcohol and leave those people who suffered from this serious illness and disease to fight it on their own. As a community they started to provide more supports for them. They started to provide more encouragement to them. Families started offering more supports to those who were impacted. All of those things have made a difference.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the residents there. I want to congratulate the residents, many of whom were sceptical when all of this started and who fought very aggressively against the ban. I want to congratulate those who had the foresight to move forward and to put it in. Today, I acknowledge the government for making the amendments to the Liquor Control Act so that it can be enforced appropriately, and so that charges can be laid when it is necessary, because we even heard recently about the case of alcohol still being smuggled into the community. In fact, there have been several articles that I have here that were in papers about alcohol still being smuggled into the community. I think if it is a dry community, it is a dry community, that no one should be taking alcohol in there. It does not matter if you are just visiting, if you are just there for meetings, you need to respect the laws that govern this particular reserve, and they have the authority to make their own laws as self governing bodies.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the legislation is appropriate, and if there is a ban it needs to be respected and those who do not respect it then they should be punishable under the act. I think this is exactly what the Aboriginal people have been asking for, because while they have the opportunity to enforce a ban they do not always have the resources to be able to police it appropriately. As you know, when you live in remote communities, like Natuashish, for example, there is so much access despite its remoteness, by snowmobile, by boat, by chartered aircraft, as well as commercial aircraft, by commercial boat services and private boat services. It is always more difficult to police these particular things especially when you do not have authority to be able to enforce it appropriately. This is indeed giving them the authority that they need to be able to seize any kind of alcohol that is coming into the community and to certainly search those people and charge them.

Mr. Speaker, we do not have a problem with this. In fact, the only thing that I would conclude is saying that it looks good on Natuashish and I am very proud of them for having the courage and the foresight to do what they have done. It has been difficult for their leaders but they are making a stronger community. They are building a stronger community. They are inspiring their young people to look in different directions. They are encouraging them to deal with their problems and not just look for easy ways out such as alcohol and substance abuse.

I think, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day not only are we seeing a community today that is looking at progressing in different directions, but I think you are going to see a community of tomorrow that are going to have a lot of very dedicated, very courageous and strong leadership in the Innu Nation and in this particular community, in fact, simply because of the decisions and the leadership and the guidance that is being given today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am glad to take a few moments to speak to Bill 32. I do not think I will be speaking for a long time, but this is a very important bill and I am happy to stand in support of the bill.

What this bill does, as my colleague from the Leader of the Official Opposition has pointed out, is it supports the decision that was made by the people of Natuashish, it supports their self determination and their right to make a decision to have a booze ban, as they call it. By putting this legislation in place we give them what is needed to enforce that booze ban. They can enforce it on their own, but they also need the help of the police force to do that as well, both their own police force and the RCMP. By having this law in place we are supporting their decision to try to have a community that is free of booze. What that does is say to them, that we recognize their right to make that decision for themselves as a community, and that we, sitting here in this House, support them as they do that.

I think the people in Natuashish, more than anybody, know that just having a booze ban is not going to end the issues with alcohol that they have in that community. The leaders there and others in the community are well aware of the programs that need to be put in place, programs that they already have in place, programs that they are supporting, programs that they are running themselves to help deal with the issues that are causing the alcoholism that exists in their community, and the reason why they imposed a booze ban on their community.

It is very important that, as a provincial government, those of us sitting in this House recognize the right of a community, especially an Aboriginal community, to make this decision and for us to support it. I think what is really good about this bill is not just that this bill relates to a community that, at the moment, has a ban on alcohol in the community, but the bill also recognizes the possibility of other communities down the road becoming booze free as well. This legislation, therefore, would cover other communities and it would mean, the way in which the legislation is written, that if another community were to ban alcohol an amendment would not have to be made to this act, that the act covers future possibilities as well. While, at the moment, the amendment benefits only Natuashish, down the road it could benefit other communities also.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, both of whom are Aboriginal women from Labrador, the minister and the Leader of the Official Opposition, have spoken well to the issue, but I did want to say that I totally support this. I know some of the people in Natuashish and I have always been proud of what they have done in their community.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have always been proud of the people, who they are and what they have done in their community, and I am proud today that we can stand and support them as they continue to deal with their issues and continue to grow as a community.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs speaks now, she shall close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank my hon. colleagues for their support. Government thanks you, the leadership of Natuashish thanks you, the community itself thanks you, and the little children like Lenita do thank you for your support.

With that, I shall close debate on Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act, be now read a second time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act, Bill 32.

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

MS BURKE: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider a resolution relating to the advancing or guaranteeing of certain loans made under the Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957, Bill 16.

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

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

CHAIR (Collins): Order, please!

Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, Bill 16.

CHAIR: Committee of the Whole is now prepared to debate Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957." (Bill 16)

CLERK: That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the advance of loans to and the guarantee of the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by or loans advanced to certain corporations.

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: The schedule.

CHAIR: Shall the schedule carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, the schedule carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 16 carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, Bill 16 carried without amendment.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, when we passed the motion to resolve the House into a Committee of the Whole, we only called to review Bill 16, but I would ask leave of the House, while we are in Committee of the Whole, if we could also review Bills 29, 30, 32 and 35, by leave with the approval of the House.

CHAIR: Is leave granted?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: Leave is granted.

By leave, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.

CHAIR: The Chair will now debate Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000." (Bill 29)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Wild Life Act.

CHAIR: The Chair will now debate Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Wild Life Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Wild Life Act." (Bill 30).

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Wild Life Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act.

CHAIR: The Committee will now prepare to debate Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act." (Bill 32)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 and 3.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 and 3 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 and 3 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, The Child Care Services Act, The Child, Youth And Family Services Act And The Regional Health Authorities Regulations.

CHAIR: The Committee is now prepared to debate Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, The Child Care Services Act, The Child, Youth And Family Services Act And The Regional Health Authorities Regulations.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 18 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 18 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 to 18 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, The Child Care Services Act, The Child, Youth And Family Services Act And The Regional Health Authorities Regulations.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee rise, report the resolution on Bill 16, along with Bills 29, 30, 32, 35, and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report certain bills, 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 (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Assistant Deputy Speaker and Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bills 16, 29, 30, 32 and 35 carried without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bills 29, 30, 32, and 35 carried without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I assume we will continue with the procedure for Bill 16, the resolution.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the resolution be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this resolution be now read a first time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the advance of loans to and the guarantee of the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by or loans advanced to certain corporations.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board, that the resolution be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this resolution be now read a second time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the advance of loans to and the guarantee of the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by or loans advanced to certain corporations.

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, for leave to introduce a bill entitled An Act Relating To The Advancing Or Guaranteeing Of Certain Loans made under the Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957, Bill 16; and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill, Bill 16, a supplementary supply bill, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. Minister shall have leave to introduce the supply bill and 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'.

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 16)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 16 be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 16 be now read a second time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

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 Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 16)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board that Bill 16 be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 16 be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 16 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 Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 16)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 16 has now been read a third time, and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957," read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 16)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, with that, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

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

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