December 1, 2009             HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS        Vol. XLVI  No. 32


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today the Chair welcomes the following members' statements: the hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley; the hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North; the hon. the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis; and the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

The hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to pay tribute to Hubert Osmond, a very special person from my district who celebrated his 100 birthday on Friday, November 13, 2009. I had the pleasure of attending a special birthday celebration in which he was surrounded by his loving family and friends.

Birthdays remind us that the gift of life is a most precious and important one. About the only thing that comes to us without effort is age, and 100 years is a long time and certainly deserves to be celebrated and honoured.

Mr. Speaker, Hubert was born on November 13, 1909 to James and Patience Osmond. His father was from Moreton's Harbour, Notre Dame Bay and his mother was from L'Anse aux Meadows. He was born in a little community in the bottom of White Bay called The Beaches. He later moved with his family to Burtons Cove on the opposite side of White Bay. There he and his three brothers and one sister operated a sawmill business for many years.

Today his son Fred carries on the name of the sawmill business, Burtons Cove Logging and Lumber Limited in Hampden, where Hubert and his wife still live in their own home. Mr. Osmond has thirteen children, thirty-nine grandchildren, forty great-grandchildren and four great-great-grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, Hubert Osmond is truly an inspiration to us all. I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in saluting and congratulating this outstanding individual and wishing him the warmest of greetings on reaching his 100 birthday and best wishes for many more to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to wish Minnie Hillier of St. Lunaire-Griquet a very happy ninety-third birthday.

Born on November 24, 1916, Minnie has experienced an ever-changing Newfoundland and Labrador and has survived the hardships of raising a family in a rural area of our Province.

After the death of her first husband, William Quinton, who was lost driving a dog team in a snowstorm, Minnie soldiered on living, working and raising her children at the St. Anthony orphanage, until she eventually met and married her second husband, Llewellyn Hillier.

Although Minnie has been through some tough times, she thrives on her memories of the good times shared over the years with her family and friends. She is proud of her thirteen children, her grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and they have all been blessed and impacted positively by her life.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending a very happy ninety-third birthday to Minnie Hillier, with best wishes for good health and happiness in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KEVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Town of Torbay on their first Sports Hall of Fame, held in October of this year. The town recognized five extraordinary citizens of the Town of Torbay for their achievements in sports and recreation.

There were two categories, Builders and Athletes. There were three pioneer builders that were inducted into the hall of fame, and they were: Cyril Power, Jack Hogan, and the late Pat Dawe.

Inducted into the athlete category was Jack Hickey, who is a great hockey player and softball player, but he is also recognized as a world champion for firefighter combat challenge. Other inductee into the athlete category was Colleen Tapper, who has represented this Province in eight separate sports on the national and international level. I would also like to congratulate the chairperson, Barry Codner, and his committee, Ralph Tapper, Bob Whelan and Marie Codner for their effort in getting this initiative up and running.

I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating the first inductees into the Town of Torbay's Sports Hall of Fame.

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 recognize and offer thanks to a long time resident of Mount Pearl and a former colleague of mine, Ed Grant.

I feel very privileged to have worked with Ed Grant during my time on Mount Pearl City Council. Ed was a great mentor and someone who was always willing to offer guidance and advice. He did not seek re-election in this year's municipal election.

As one of the longest serving city councillors in the city's history, Ed was vital in assisting the city with its advancement and progress over the years. He was originally elected in 1985, followed by six successful elections. Personally, I have learned a lot from Ed. He has brought a lot to the table, including his great business sense. Ed truly helped make Mount Pearl the great city it is and I am proud to call him my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Ed Grant on his retirement from City Council in Mount Pearl and wish him all the best in his future endeavours.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to acknowledge yet another important development in our offshore oil industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: There is a saying, Mr. Speaker, in the oil patch that "big fields get bigger." That has certainly proven to be the case in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore.

Mr. Speaker, on November 23, Husky Energy announced that it discovered additional oil resources in the North Amethyst Field, a White Rose extension area. The current estimate of the newly discovered resource ranges from 30 to 85 million barrels of light crude oil, with the best estimate at this point being 60 million barrels.

Mr. Speaker, the Province, through Nalcor Energy, obtained a 5 per cent equity interest when we negotiated the agreement for the White Rose extension. The discovery of this additional oil points to the foresight of this government in ensuring we are equity partners in the development of our resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: As a result of the discovery of this additional oil, Mr. Speaker, the Province will benefit through Nalcor by such a large amount that it is the same as recouping the purchase price for our equity in the White Rose extension project and our equity in the Hibernia South extension field.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: And, Mr. Speaker, depending on recovery rates and price of oil during production, this one discovery will cover all, or substantially all, the purchase price of our equity share in the Hebron development as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, this is outstanding news for the people of this Province and it certainly proves our critics wrong. Our decision to take equity in these resource projects is already paying tremendous dividends. Our government is taking greater ownership in the development of our resources in the best interest of the people of the Province and for the greatest benefit of the people of the Province.

This announcement demonstrates precisely why taking an equity stake in our resources is such an important and worthwhile public policy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: In negotiating that equity stake, Mr. Speaker, not only did the Province buy into existing reservoirs, we also acquired a piece of any additional discoveries in the whole formation above and below the existing reservoirs. Clearly, the information I am presenting here today demonstrates that this was a very wise decision.

In addition, under the terms of the agreement reached with the White Rose partners in 2007, the Province will obtain enhanced royalty of 36.5 per cent on all the oil in the this new license area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, Husky's announcement demonstrates the tremendous resource in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore area and, in particular, the ability to discover multiple pools in a given area. It is yet another positive step in our evolution as an oil producing jurisdiction and the potential that lies before us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

I think the statement is just proof of how desperate this government is to have a little bit of attention created around anything in the Province. Mr. Speaker, there is a saying that when anything is successful, you want to be associated with that success. Well, I can tell you, this government wastes no time, Mr. Speaker, in getting off the mark.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I want to acknowledge companies, like Husky Energy, who has given a lot to the exploration industry in this Province to ensure that we keep building on the oil industry that we have.

Mr. Speaker, it is a concern for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians because we know that oil production will start to drop over the next ten years in our Province, and that could potentially mean a drop in royalties.

Mr. Speaker, if the minister's objective today was to make this announcement to justify an equity share in the industry, I say to you, minister, you have failed because there is no justification in this statement that says we should be spending our money to buy equity in the oil industry. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the oil industry in this Province –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I ask members if they would allow the member to respond to the ministerial statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: They are like kids in a playground who just got a lollipop.

Mr. Speaker, the statement does not justify investment in equity in the oil industry because for this reason: The oil in Newfoundland and Labrador is owned 100 per cent by Labradorians and never should we have to pay these companies to develop that industry. We could achieve the same returns on our investment; we could achieve the same royalties, and better, for the people of the Province without ever paying equity.

Do you know what this statement tells me today, Mr. Speaker? It tells me that we are paying money again. That is what it tells me, Mr. Speaker. I have some great difficulty with that. If the minister thinks that this justifies –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude her statement.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The reality is that we do not just own 5 per cent of the oil industry, we own 100 per cent of that industry; the people of the Province do. The fact that this government is choosing to pay good money –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MS JONES: - so that they can play oil magnet in the industry, Mr. Speaker, does not justify the needs I say to the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

I have to say that when this news came out – I think it was last week some time, we were all quite busy at that time, but I remember when it came out. I thought this is good news for the Province, obviously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: I mean the news of White Rose. Obviously, it is good news for the Province if more oil is coming out of the ground; the government did not take it out.

What I would like to say to the government, if they will remember, I have always agreed in the equity stake. I stand here today and still agree with the equity stake, but only if everybody in the Province is sharing in that equity. So, it is not enough to say that the Province, as government, is getting the equity stake, all of the people have to feel that equity stake. The people who are on income assistance that is keeping them in poverty, the seniors who have not enough money who are living in poverty, people who cannot get home care who are in poverty; they need to share in that equity stake as well.

So put the programs in place now. We have a future. The money is there. Start putting the programs in place!

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi if she has concluded her remarks.

MS MICHAEL: No, I would like to put a concluding statement. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

What I am saying to the government is we know we have a future that is going on and it is going to be bright and it is going to get brighter, don't wait twenty years to put the home care in place, start putting the programs in place now. It is too late down the road; put them in the infrastructure now. I wish the government would realize that is the way to go.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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.

As members of this hon. House are aware, AbitibiBowater's decisions to first pull out of Newfoundland and Labrador and later to seek creditor protection had a wide-ranging impact on the Province. It left many workers, seniors and families in a precarious and vulnerable position.

While AbitibiBowater's actions evoked fear and anxiety, it has also led, Mr. Speaker, to a sense of focus and determination to rebuild the economy of the Province's Central Region. There is a renewed spirit of what can be done and what can be accomplished.

As a government, we are a committed partner in the region's revitalization. We share the view that the Central Region has played a prominent role in the Province's economic and social landscape for the past 100 years and it will continue, Mr. Speaker, to contribute to a vibrant provincial economy for many more years to come.

Since the mill's closure, we have announced financial investments totalling in excess of $100 million in the Central Region - that is on top of our other annual investments in this region. These investments have ranged from our unprecedented decision to provide $35 million in severance and other entitlements to impacted workers to offsetting voids in municipal budgets to initiatives targeting long-term economic development and sustainable employment.

We also recognize that a fundamental component of greater economic and community development activity is to engage those who know their region best - community and business leaders, along with the youth and social activists.

Prior to the mill's close, we established a fifteen-person Community Development Committee. Led by Mr. Cyril Farrell, it consists of community officials and leaders representing a cross-section of age, gender, geography and professional experiences.

The committee has tackled its work with high degrees of passion and enthusiasm. It has reached out to community development groups, businesses, and local municipalities to discuss strategic opportunities. Members have also played a key role in providing the platform for the provincial government to discuss initiatives that impact the region's social and economic landscape. Its work may not be in the public's eye but its results certainly are.

The Community Development Committee is, without question, front and center in the provincial government's response to the mill's closure and we value its work in advancing sector development initiatives in such areas as agrifoods, tourism and knowledge-based industries and to help to create sustainable, long-term economic opportunities for this region.

I would like to thank the members for their contribution and I look forward to continuing our relationship and working together into the future. Together, we can identify and realize opportunities that lead to a stronger, more diversified Central Region.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you minister for providing me with an advance copy of the statement. It is noteworthy that there is nothing new in this statement. It is commendable to acknowledge the people who are involved in this committee, who are concerned about their future. The reality is there was a failure by government to secure the mill when it ran into trouble. What people are clearly worried about now is the long-term security of the area, and this needs to be addressed in a long-term strategy.

Thirty-five million has been paid out to the workers, however, government will be claiming this back through AbitibiBowater. This would never have happened in the first place if government had not reacted to the relentless pressure from the Official Opposition. The question now, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question now, Mr. Speaker, is: What are they going to do for the people to gain some benefit from the resource, a resource that is earning government millions of dollars with nothing going back to the people? Citizens of Central just want a fair share on their hydro power. Another question we have, Mr. Speaker, is: What about pensioners who will be losing approximately 30 per cent of their pensions if the company is declared insolvent?

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is much of the statement is fluff, sorry. We need more of a real investment of money in Central and the people of that area need it and deserve it.

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.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement, with what should have been, I guess in his eye, an update of the work of the Community Development Committee. I would have expected some more specifics, minister. It would be great to get an actual concrete list of what some of the results have been. You named them in a very general way and I would like see you bring a list, a more concrete one, to the House and let us see that. I would be very happy to see it.

We do know, in my party and myself, that people are talking to us from the Central Region and they do not see a lot of work coming from this committee. So that is why I am asking for some concrete examples. I do know that the minister, and probably all MHAs, are receiving letters from the AbitibiBowater pensioners who are being affected by the fact that the unfunded pension liability that the company has that is causing their pensions to be seriously reduced. I do not know if the minister or the Premier or the Deputy Premier may be sitting down with the pensioners or not. I do not know if you are sitting with CEP and with the company, but somebody has to sit down and look at proposals that would help these pensioners receive, not lose any pensions at all. I know that CEP and the company have come up with a proposal that looks pretty logical to me. So I really would encourage the minister to get involved in that discussion so that the pensioners, who are facing poverty if these pensions do not get saved, can have some hope because they have no hope right now, and that is certainly the message of their e-mails.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the House of our funding commitment which will help the Labrador region of our Province with adaptation planning for the effects of climate change.

More than $98,000 in funding, Mr. Speaker, will help researchers examine the role that values and cultural identity play in shaping responses to climate change. In the context of adaptation decision making, values and culture are important as they determine the policies and plans that are deemed effective and equitable. The project also aims to build capacity at the local level for planning and adaptation.

Spearheaded by Dr. Johanna Wolf of the Labrador Institute and Dr. Trevor Bell of Memorial University, the research will complement the information gathered at the Climate Change and Renewable Resources in Labrador Conference held in North West River last year. At that time, key priorities for action were identified such as improving collaboration among communities, researchers and governments in Labrador, engaging communities on climate change issues, and compiling existing knowledge on climate change studies in Labrador.

Adaptation is a serious issue for our Province, Mr. Speaker, given there are many smaller coastal communities and towns. Warming air temperatures in the north, changes in rain-snow patterns and increases in storm surge and sea level are several of the anticipated adverse effects of climate change. We also understand the specific challenges for our northern communities, and planning must also incorporate their cultural identity and values.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that climate change is an important issue for our environment and our economy, and is a consideration in our daily lives. That is why we allocated $1.3 million in Budget 2009 to help communities assess and adapt to climate change impacts, the results of which will inform policy and strategy development. The adaptation project in Labrador is an excellent example of our funding commitment in action.

Protecting the environment, Mr. Speaker, remains a priority for this provincial government. Measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy efficiency, assess environmental impacts, and support climate change adaptation efforts are part of the ongoing focus of the sustainability of Newfoundland and Labrador. Strengthening the resiliency of our northern communities against climate change is an important part of this focus, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. It is good to know that government is becoming involved with regard to the issues of protecting our environment, with regard to climate change, and to know that they are engaging the communities in the northern regions. It is a known fact, Mr. Speaker, that the people of the northern regions, not only in Newfoundland and Labrador, but throughout this country of ours are affected more so than some other regions. We know of new species that are stepping forward, and some of the other ones are disappearing.

Mr. Speaker, from time to time, we try to get information with regard to climate change, and it is good to see that the minister is coming forward with some information. There was a provincial study done, I think it was about a year and a half ago, and by the time we got it and we went through it, all the black pages, everything was blacked out. There was one thing we did learn from that study is that even with the Lower Churchill going ahead, and we hope that happens sooner rather than later, even by the year 2010, it is my understanding that even the levels of protection that we need will be higher than what Kyoto estimates need at that particular time. We also know there are many other issues here within our Province, like Holyrood, we are looking forward to the short-term plan.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to know that money is being put forward with regard to this. Hopefully, the minister, over the coming period of time, will be able to announce to us - I know there is $1.3 million; we know where $96,000 of it has gone now. Hopefully, we will be able to get a report on the other funding.

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 of her statement. I am delighted to see the plans with regard to climate change effects, adaptation, that is being planned for Labrador.

I am aware, from the last Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador meetings in Gander that some of us attended, that municipalities are being given disaster preparedness kits and are expected to create disaster preparedness plans and develop the infrastructure structure needed for disaster response. So, they will have to invest in things like mobile command units and communication systems.

I am not sure that the $1.3 million is going to help with infrastructural needs. It seems to me that it is more with the planning and putting plans in place. More money will be needed for infrastructure as we anticipate, unfortunately, more weather caused disasters.

One of the pieces of infrastructure that we need is a 911 service throughout the Province. We all know that is a necessary part of disaster preparedness and we still do not even have a basic 911 throughout the Province, as we know. The enhanced 911 is being studied before we even have basic service. One of the pieces of work that needs to be put in place, and I definitely saw this during the two by-elections – if I may have leave, Mr. Speaker, just to finish just one sentence?

During the by-elections, I could definitely see that if we do not soon get our civic numbering systems in place, the naming of streets and numbers, that we are not preparing for disaster when it comes to emergencies. We all know, and we have talked about it in the House, that needs to be put in place first.

So I really encourage the Province to support the municipalities in getting the civic numbering in place in the municipalities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Premier stated that the Department of Justice has completed a review on the Upper Churchill deal and had received some legal opinions from Quebec lawyers. These legal opinions have since been forwarded to CF(L)Co, as we know, and they have asked Hydro-Quebec to have discussions around renegotiating the deal.

I ask the Premier today if he is prepared to table those legal opinions so that they are available to the public.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the level of betrayal of the hon. member opposite to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador never ceases to astound me.

She is asking today that we release the legal opinions that could possibly be used, if an action is commenced by CF(L)Co, and give them to Hydro-Quebec so that they can prepare their case against Newfoundland and Labrador and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Absolutely not!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, who does not have access to these opinions right now? The government has them, Nalcor has them, CF(L)Co has them, of which Hydro-Quebec is one-third shareholders of CF(L)Co; so my guess is they have access to them. The only people, the only stakeholders in this that do not have any access to any legal opinions to substantiate the case the government claims they have, are the people of the Province.

I ask you, Premier: Why will you not disclose the information that will substantiate the propaganda that is being put out there by your government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, Nalcor Energy does not have our legal opinions.

What we have indicated to them is what we have discovered, which we felt was the proper interpretation of Quebec's civil code when it comes to good faith or bona fides with respect to the ongoing obligation under contracts. That general information was disclosed to CF(L)Co, and CF(L)Co have then gone and gotten their own legal opinions.

So these are opinions that are held by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. They are confidential opinions. There is a solicitor-client privilege between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Department of Justice, and those legal opinions that have come in from other sources.

We would basically be giving away the farm; we would be showing exactly what our position is. I mean I cannot be any simpler or any plainer to you, that you do not give the other side, in a legal case, your legal opinions. You do not sit down in a game of cards at a poker table or a game of 120s and show your cards on the table and then play out the game of 120s. That is not the way it works.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

The hon. the Premier to conclude his remarks.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: There is something, obviously, the Leader of the Opposition is missing here because I cannot understand why she is trying to accommodate Quebec in this whole exercise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When Hydro-Quebec is a shareholder of CF(L)Co, who are the very people that are issuing this challenge on behalf of the government, one would think they do have all the information.

Mr. Speaker, back in May of 2008, the Minister of Natural Resources who happens to be the Deputy Premier, stated that they had legal opinions at that time in the Province. Her big statement of the day is that they were getting ready to sue the federal government and Hydro-Quebec on redress on the Upper Churchill. Mr. Speaker, no sooner was she out of the press conference then she was backtracking on her statements saying that she had misspoken.

Well, Mr. Speaker, my question to the Premier today is the same legal opinions that were being referenced by the Deputy Premier over a year ago. Is that the same premise under which you, your government, Nalcor and CF(L)Co are proceeding today?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is looking for trails and traces and trying to thread pieces together that does not make any sense. Mr. Speaker, when she has the facts before her she does not know how to interpret them.

No, Mr. Speaker, there was nothing I said back at that time that had any reference whatsoever. I misspoke in a news conference. I owned that completely; I withdrew those remarks. They have nothing to do with any action that has been taken since that time, Mr. Speaker, none at all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Premier went out there on that day with the big press conference, Mr. Speaker, made the big statements and, no doubt, had misspoken because she had nothing to substantiate of that of which she spoke, and that is why she withdrew the comments. Mr. Speaker, let's see if there is anything to substantiate the claims that they are making today.

The Premier committed yesterday, in the media, to provide any precedents involving court cases where contracts were overturned as a result of the 1994 amendments to the Quebec civil code, which are really what is at the heart of this entire challenge that is being launched by CF(L)Co. According to Ed Martin - I listened to his comments on the radio.

I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker, -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - what precedents are there, and I ask if you would at least be prepared to table the information around those cases that you feel will substantiate your claim?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite is frightened to death that we are going to be successful, that we are finally going to turn around and get redress and reverse the terrible inequity and, I guess, the wrongdoing that has been done to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as a result of a Liberal government. This happened back in 1969. There has been a terrible injustice. We have been wronged. We have lost a fortune. We are going to lose another $60-plus billion over the next thirty years, and she is frightened to death that maybe, maybe we are going to do something good for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I watched in astonishment last night when she did a scrum outside and basically said that she really did not have any confidence in what was going on with regard to our legal action. What kind of a message is that to the people of the Province? What kind of message is that to the people of Quebec, who are watching it and saying, a politician in Newfoundland and Labrador does not think Newfoundland and Labrador has a leg to stand on in its legal case?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have no problem with success in this Province; in fact, we want to see as much of it as we possibly can. What we do we have a problem with, Mr. Speaker, is a government who continues to make mistakes, and they have admitted to a lot of them in the last few months, Mr. Speaker.

Let's not forget, this is also a government about fluff. They were going to put transmission lines through a national park but turned around after and told people, we are just kidding. So, Mr. Speaker, what do you expect when you lay something out there in the public but you do not want to substantiate it?

So I say to the Premier today, I say to the Premier today, the research that we have done, very limited, very limited, I will admit to that, Mr. Speaker, but there has never –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members to my left for their co-operation and I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to pose her question now.

MS JONES: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, because it is a very important question.

In fact, we want to know where the precedented cases are that the Premier speaks of because according to the knowledge that we have, Mr. Speaker, there has been no serious address or definition by the provincial courts or by the Supreme Court as it relates to the Quebec criminal code (inaudible), and I ask the Premier today if he will give us that (inaudible)?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has raised the issue of research, and I can't - not take advantage of this opportunity to point out the dearth lack of any ability they have over there to research information. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the House Leader for the Opposition stood in this House and accused Nalcor of spending nearly $1 million on Summa in Ottawa, a lobbyist company, to lobby on behalf of them. The information he said he got from the federal government Web site. Mr. Speaker, he was completely, totally wrong.

First of all, there is no federal government agency that provides information on fees that are paid to lobbyist firms on companies' behalf. Second of all, the information –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer now.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is important. The $960,000 that was referenced on that Web site was for three specific initiatives of this government that are being done on behalf of Nalcor. In fact, since 2006, only $298,500 has been spent by Nalcor (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Great diversion by the minister from the question that was asked to her. Obviously, they have no precedented cases. They have no information to tender. They have nothing to substantiate, other than fluff, Mr. Speaker.

So let me ask the minister this. The amendments of the Quebec Civil Code, which took place in 1994, and we know that the Churchill Falls Agreement was signed in 1969, so I ask: Is there any retroactive clauses in this agreement that would allow you to even have the contract addressed twenty-five or thirty years later?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: So, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite has talked about her research and the detailed research that she does, and how strong it is, and how accurate it is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The Opposition House Leader, who I presume deals from the same –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: – brilliant pool of research that the Opposition Leader deals from, came up yesterday with a figure that had absolutely nothing to do with what he pretended it was all about. In fact, the $960,000 was for the Northern Strategic Plan, for diesel subsidies, which I assume the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair is in favour of, and energy related studies for the Department of Natural Resources. That is what the $960,000 was for.

So this is the research. So, if your researchers are telling you you cannot do something on a legal case, or they are telling you about precedents, ignore them, because they do not know what they are talking about, like you do not know what you are talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Still no answers. Still nothing to substantiate the claims that they are making. They cannot tell us if the Quebec Civil Code that was amended in 1994 is even going to be retroactive to deal with this issue. They cannot tell us if there are any precedented cases that exist in the courts since 1994, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe they can tell us this, if Quebec Hydro refuses to meet and negotiate before the January 15 deadline that you have put in place, what is the next course of action? Is there a case to take to the Supreme Court or not?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we will cross that bridge when we come to it. That is an action in good faith. We are assuming that there may be good faith by Hydro-Quebec. It will be a first, believe me, if they happen to do it. Unlike my friends opposite who think they are probably the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Having said that, we will - if at the end of the day there is no renegotiation, then we will leave that matter in the hands of CF(L)Co. They have the benefit of legal opinions which they have performed, which I assume are similar to the legal opinions which we have which indicate that there are other remedies available. That is the simplest and most general way I can put it for you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My next questions are for the Minister of Health, and I know he is awfully excited to be getting on his feet in this session of the House.

Mr. Speaker, today marks World AIDS Day and the Province has been without an infectious disease specialist since March of this year. In fact, in questioning in the spring session of the House of Assembly and in the early fall session, the government had committed to launch a recruitment strategy to fill those particular positions. To date, they have still not been done.

I ask the minister today: What the plan of action is and what are they doing to recruit these specialists for the Province after such a long period of time of having the positions vacant?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition is accurate that the infectious disease specialist position is vacant; however, we did have a locum here for the Province in November. This locum is now finished but has expressed interest in coming to work. We are also speaking to another infectious disease specialist who is interested in coming to the Province and doing locum work in January.

In terms of recruiting doctors or physicians, Mr. Speaker, we currently have, I think it is 1,042 doctors in the Province – more than we have ever had. We are currently in negotiations with the medical association. Most significantly, Mr. Speaker, we are ready at some point in the near future, to release the market adjustment policy which will allow us to address the situations of recruitment and retention in hard to fill positions. This has come out of the bargaining process, Mr. Speaker, and we are confident that in the not too distant future we will be able to fill this position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Right now, today, I think it is slated for three infectious disease specialists for this Province, of which we have neither one. We have 130 patients today who are suffering from AIDS and HIV who need this particular service on a regular basis. We have just come through a major pandemic in the Province, not quite over yet, with regard to the H1N1.

I ask the minister today: In the absence of the many months that have went by with no success of recruiting not even one of these three specialists for the Province, why are you not looking at some kind of a package that we could offer to retain one of those locums that are currently visiting every month, or couple of months, to come and stay and practice in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I just indicated to the Leader of the Opposition that we are in negotiations with the medical association on an ongoing basis. We are talking to a couple of doctors who are specialists in this area, with a view to recruiting them to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we are offering attractive bonuses in terms of retention and recruitment. Also, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador offers a quality of life that doctors are looking for today. There is more than just money, Mr. Speaker, it is good place to work; it is a good place to raise a family. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I can think of no better place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, on June 2, 2008 the Western School Board -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DEAN: -decided that Bayview Regional Collegiate in St. Lunaire-Griquet would close its door upon the completion of a new facility in St. Anthony.

This closure of Bayview would mean that children would have to be bussed up to forty kilometres to St. Anthony which poses great safety concerns for parents, especially during the winter months. Also, the loss of this school could mean that the community of St. Lunaire-Griquet would lose an important part of its identity.

So I would ask the Minister of Education: What has your department done to ensure the best interest of the students, and the community of St. Lunaire-Griquet, will be served by keeping Bayview academy open?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the member opposite for his question. A very interesting question. I wish I could ask it back because I remember the member opposite making some very public and clear statements on commitments that he would honour if elected as the member of the other side.

What I have done is I have honoured the commitment that I made at a public meeting at which three members opposite attended and a number of people on this side of the House attended. That was to ensure that due process was followed, to ensure that the concerns raised to me by members of the public meeting, each and every single one of them were brought to the attention of the school board and that I would direct the school board to respond appropriately to the people, to the town council, to the school council, to address the concerns they brought forward.

Mr. Speaker, I have followed through on that commitment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, back in 2005 there was an announcement by the Nova Central School Board that Leo Burke Academy in Bishop's Falls would be closing and students were to be bussed to Grand Falls to attend school.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. DEAN: At that time government, Mr. Speaker, decided to reverse a decision made by the school board, and Premier Williams was quoted as saying: The Province will continue to overrule the decisions of government boards and consultants with which it disagrees. He also stated: You will see it again.

So I ask the minister: Will you commit to reversing the decision made by the Western School District to close Bayview Regional Collegiate?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to make all kinds of commitments today, and I am prepared to review for the member opposite the kind of leadership we have provided for education in this Province. If we had the time, I could talk about the elimination of school fees, and the provision of textbooks. I could talk about the quality of facilities we are putting in place. I am prepared to talk about the $120-plus million we are putting into infrastructure and new schools and renovations and maintenance.

I am prepared to talk, Mr. Speaker, about a democratic process that this government supports that just saw new school boards elected in this Province, and I am prepared to talk about my commitment to let those boards do the job that they have been elected to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's commitment. However, my question was: Given the establishment of a precedent, would the minister be willing to commit to reversing the decision made by the Western School District to close Bayview Regional Collegiate?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, to pick up where I left off, I am certainly prepared to talk about the new schools we are building in Placentia and in Torbay and in Paradise.

I am also prepared to, once again, reiterate this government's commitment, Mr. Speaker, that all of us recognize the role of school boards in this Province. As a matter of fact, this government made the decision to invest more than $300,000 into democracy to promote the election of school boards because it is their role, Mr. Speaker, to provide governance and to organize schools and school systems in this Province. My commitment is to ensure that those boards do their jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, the 2009-2010 academic year has already been marked by four school closures due to air quality issues. We have urged the Department of Education, repeatedly, to make air quality inspections mandatory in all schools throughout the Province and for inspections, of course, to be made public. The Department of Education continues to reject the idea and schools continue to be disrupted.

I ask the minister: How many more times will we have to raise this issue before you will take the initiative to reconsider the way that air quality is monitored in our schools?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having great difficulty in hearing the questions asked, and I can only imagine what the ministers are trying to do in listening and trying to provide an answer. I ask members to provide an opportunity here for questions to be asked and answers to be given.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know my colleagues get rather excited when we talk about education. We have done so many wonderful things in this Province. It is really hard to contain ourselves.

I thank the member opposite for the question. I am gratified by the amount of attention you are giving me today. I appreciate that.

Let me remind you of a couple of things that I am sure your colleague next to you from Port de Grave has reminded you of. We have invested this year $120-plus million, Mr. Speaker, in school maintenance, in renovations and in air quality projects. Mr. Speaker, that includes everything from replacing roofs, windows, and siding to tiding, to building new schools.

Mr. Speaker, I would also remind the member opposite, or share for his knowledge perhaps, that is more than a 700 per cent increase in investment in school facilities for the purposes of things like controlling and fixing air quality problems, more than 700 per cent increase from when the Liberal government was in power, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Let me also say to the member opposite's question, Mr. Speaker, that they are clearly misinformed about the kinds of things that will fix air quality problems.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on previous occasions when we raised the question of whether air quality testing should be conducted in the Province's schools, the minister said the practice of conducting enhanced inspections is the best way forward. However, when mould issues are found and renovations are done the contractors frequently use air quality testing to determine whether it is safe for students to reoccupy the school. So there seems to be a contradiction going on.

I ask the minister: Why is it that air quality testing is not being used to detect problems in the first instance, but is being used to give the green light for the reoccupation of schools?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: First of all, Mr. Speaker, thank you again for the question and the opportunity to elaborate a little further on some of the things that I have been talking about.

For the member opposite, let me say, first of all, that clearly people who are experts in the field of air quality will tell you, number one, that air quality testing will not solve the problems, and in many cases, many of the problems we are having with air quality in our schools cannot be detected by the kind of air quality testing that the member opposite talks about.

Well, let me just say this, Mr. Speaker, let me just say this, to be very clear for the people who are watching and listening to this. The problems we have discovered recently with air quality testing have not been discovered through air quality testing. They have been discovered because this government has gone in and invested money to upgrade facilities. Problems, Mr. Speaker, that would not have been detected, would not have been detected, if we had not been investing time and money to ensure the facilities were as good as they possibly could be for students.

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, I could not believe my ears yesterday when I heard the Minister of Health and Community Services say in this House that the long-term care and community services strategy is not complete. Mr. Speaker, at the very least he should have known – he indicated he had been listening to the news and he had seen the town hall that I held last week on CBC on the Internet. He should have known I was coming with questions on home care yesterday. Mr. Speaker, this government announced they were working on a strategy in February of 2008. It was the first time it was said in this House by the then Minister of Health, and since that time we have heard nothing but empty promises.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Why is the long-term care and community support strategy not ready?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I say to the member opposite, as I have indicated yesterday, the strategy is not complete. I am not satisfied where it stands in our department and I have decided that there is further work that needs to be done in relation to this strategy. That does not take away, Mr. Speaker, from the amount of money that we have spent on long-term care. As I outlined yesterday, I cannot even add it all up there is so much there, in terms of so many different long-term care facilities.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the amount of money that we have put into home care, and the amount of money that we have put into health care in general. Mr. Speaker, $2.6 billion of our budget, 40 per cent of the budget is into health care. There is a $1 billion increase over five years ago, and it is double the budget over a decade ago. We are the second highest spending per capita in the country, just after Alberta. Now what does that tell you, I say to the member opposite?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I did not ask about our health care expenditures, I am well aware of the budget. What I am talking about is why this government is not setting home care as a priority. The minister should have been able to announce yesterday that the strategy was finished. Mr. Speaker, with so many people hurting because they cannot afford home care or get adequate home care, government's lack of action on this serious situation is unjust. No less than unjust.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: When is government going to make universal home care a priority, and is that the strategy he is working on?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is hard to answer in forty-five seconds the question being asked by the member opposite. In terms of universal health care, it is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that across this country the jurisdictional scan I have had completed indicates that there is no universal home care.

I did indicate, Mr. Speaker, yesterday that I would outline how our financial assessment tool would benefit people. There have been, Mr. Speaker, 1,435 clients reassessed. The number of decreased contributions is $937, resulting, Mr. Speaker, in a $3.3 million cost to the government. To give you an example, a monthly income of $2,100, Mr. Speaker, that would have currently had to give or contribute $1,000, will now contribute $124 for a decrease in the client contribution of $953.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: That is money in the pockets of people of this Province that they can spend.

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

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

I am amazed by the minister's statement about doing a scan and not finding universal home care across the country. He had better check on his own researchers because there are at least three that have complete, total, universal home care: Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba for three.

Mr. Speaker, if home care is a priority for this government, why is it that a year ago last month the then minister said that the strategic plan would be released in the very near future? That was a year ago, November 25.

Can the minister define for this House: With the many people across his Province who need home care services, what the very near future means to you?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I became Minister of Health approximately two months ago. I indicated at that time that I would speak to the people of this Province whenever needs arose and address concerns, as we did in Flower's Cove and Lewisporte and as we did with H1N1.

The strategy, Mr. Speaker, will be developed and it will be provided when it is completed. I am not going to rush a strategy simply because the Leader of the NDP wishes to see the same. I cannot give her a time frame as to when it will be done; but I can tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, when it is done, it will be done right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A quick question from the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

The Minister of Natural Resources and the Premier both alluded to the fact that I supposedly gave some incorrect or misleading information to this House yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, I have with me in my hand here the information that I referenced yesterday, which I will table with this House. It was obtained directly from the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada. The information shows that Nalcor, which is owned 100 per cent by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, paid $960,000. It had nothing to do with what the Premier said about subsidization of oil rigs. It had to do with assistance for infrastructure and development of the Lower Churchill. It had to do with capacity of hydro-electricity in the Province of Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to table what I have, I challenge the minister and ask the minister, will you table what you are referencing which says that I am not right?

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, all I have to do if he tables the document that he has, which is from the Web site, that is the only evidence I need. The category right along that describes what the money is for is money from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to Nalcor. It nowhere says that that money was used to pay Summa. The money is money that Nalcor received outside their core budget for three different projects. It has -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS DUNDERDALE: You have it. You are tabling it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: You do not know how to read the Web site.

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.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motions.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to once again table some petitions that were submitted on behalf of the people of the Province with regard to the number of accidents with moose on our highways, calling upon the government to take some action.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I had more petitions of about 6,000 names delivered to my office again this morning with regard to this particular issue. It seems to be an issue that is growing in support right across the Province. In fact, there has been no end to the e-mails and the feedback that we have received at our office. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, any time that the public perceives that there is an issue of safety that is impacting upon the lives and people throughout the Province they would like to see some action on it. I think they are very sincerely asking the government to look into this situation, to take the advice and the direction that has been taken in other provinces in Canada, to look at what has worked in those provinces in terms of reducing the number of moose-vehicle accidents on our highway, and look at what can be implemented in Newfoundland and Labrador. They have provided a number of options and they have also provided substantial information to accompany those options that will tell you what has been effective in Alberta, or in New Brunswick, or in Nova Scotia, and what has not been effective in some of these provinces as well.

Mr. Speaker, I think that this is a plea that is being made on behalf of many individuals. In fact, over 700 individuals this year have had accidents with moose on our highways. Over 700 families are working themselves through, Mr. Speaker, serious illness and injury as a result of it, and through some financial crisis that often comes with extended health care bills and infrastructure damage.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, we have also had four fatalities on our highways since January with moose accidents. We have heard the stories of some of these people in the media, some of these people who talked about the loss of their loved ones as a result of motor vehicle accidents with moose, and how they strongly feel that more needs to be done to try and curb the number of accidents that occur, to try and make the highways safer for people that use them and travel on them.

Mr. Speaker, as I said this morning, yesterday I had petitions with about 20,000 signatures. I had another group of petitions delivered to my office today with another 6,000 signatures. Tomorrow we will have an opportunity to debate a private member's motion that focuses on this particular issue. Of course, all of the work that we are bringing forward, as a part of that motion and through these petitions, have been done by a group within the Province. It is a group, an active group that was set up to lobby government just on this issue. I certainly want to recognize the work that they have done and the tremendous support and profile that they have given this particular issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Before I recognize the hon. the Deputy Premier, I just want to say that members may notice a misprint in Orders of the Day. It shows in the distribution of Orders of the Day that second reading has taken place on Bill 38 to Bill 47, when actually Bill 38 to Bill 41 has been second reading, and Bill 42 to Bill 47 has been by Notices of Motion.

I bring that to members' attention, and I think a new bill has probably been distributed, at least to some members, the Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader.

Orders of the Day.

MS DUNDERDALE: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier on a point of order?

MS DUNDERDALE: Yes, sir.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as referenced in Question Period yesterday here in the House, the Opposition House Leader made an accusation here in the House that Nalcor paid nearly a million dollars to Summa to represent them as a lobbyist company in Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, this information is incorrect.

We ask you to view the federal government Web site that the Opposition House Leader referenced and you will be able to confirm that the information that is provided around the $960,000 has nothing, nothing, to do with fees being paid to Summa; this information is correct.

It could potentially be damaging to the company and we ask that the information be withdrawn, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. the Opposition House Leader standing, but there is no point of order. If the hon. member might want to raise a new point of order he can, but there is no point of order. It is a point of clarification, a point of information.

I remind all members when points of order are to be raised, that they should be raised at the time that the point of order occurs; not the following day or from any time thereafter.

There is no point of order.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to refer to the Order Paper under the motions, Motion 1 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the Government House Leader. I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Government Services, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, 2009, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader to have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, 2009, Bill 42, and that Bill 42 be now read a first time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, 2009", carried. (Bill 42)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, 2009, Bill 42.

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

When shall Bill 42 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members to take their conversations –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members to take their conversations and their arguments to the outside of the Chamber, so as the Chair can hear the hon. the Government House Leader.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Repeal The Newspapers And Books Act, Bill 43, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Repeal The Newspapers And Books Act, Bill 43, and that Bill 43 be now read a first time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation to introduce a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Newspapers And Books Act", carried. (Bill 43)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Repeal The Newspapers And Books Act, Bill 43.

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

When shall Bill 43 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act, Bill 45, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act, Bill 45, and that Bill 45 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 45 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 Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act", carried. (Bill 45)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act, Bill 45.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 45 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 45 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 45 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, Bill 46, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved by the hon. the Government House Leader that Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 46 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 Aboriginal Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act", carried. (Bill 46)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act. (Bill 46)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 46 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 46 be read a second time?

Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 46 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act No. 2, Bill 47, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act No. 2, Bill 47, and that Bill 47 be now read a first time.

Shall the minister have leave to introduce and have Bill 47 read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act No. 2", carried. (Bill 47)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act No. 2. (Bill 47)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 47 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 47 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 47 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, Order 4, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Private Investigation and Security Services Act, Bill 39.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Private Investigation and Security Services Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Private Investigation and Security Services Act". (Bill 39)

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, that Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Private Investigation and Security Services Act, be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to get up in this House in regard to addressing certain things in regard to this act. The Private Investigation and Security Services Act has been in my department for some time now, but there are certain things within the act that are not consistent with the actual industry itself.

First off, I would like to just address to the people in this House and also in regard to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador exactly what the act does. It certainly governs the licensure of private investigators, security agents, security agencies, burglar alarm companies, security consultants, and armed vehicle guards and couriers. Certainly, the purpose of the act itself, too, is to maintain and enhance the business of security in the Province by providing education and professional requirements and standards for the employees of these companies which carry on this type of business within the Province. In that regard, it certainly promotes a secure business environment in the Province in certain things that addresses crime, such as theft and shoplifting and that kind of thing. So in that regard it is a very, very important act when it comes to the Province and the businesses that we find in our Province across Newfoundland and Labrador.

It also provides within the act assurances that these companies, that the employees of the agencies are properly trained and educated in the field of expertise that they have chosen as a career. Certain things are prescribed within the act itself and required before a licence can be issued. Such things as proof of Canadian citizenship, minimum age of nineteen years of age, the completion of a recognized training program, proof of liability insurance, the provision of a bond. The amounts are specified in the regulations itself and the proof that the applicant has never been found guilty or convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code. These are all relevant to the issuing of that licence and very important too, as well, and held in the regulation part.

What we find in the act itself is that within the act it specifically references membership in the Newfoundland Security Guards and Private Investigation Agencies Association Limited. That association has been in regard to its activities being sporadic, very sporadic at times. We have had no activity there since 2006. They have not even submitted any of their financial statements or anything like that to Vital Statistics. So, when it comes to the association itself, it was mostly focused, I guess is the word that I would want to use, on the trade organization itself opposed to the organization being dedicated to training and professional development as the legislation suggests.

Certain sections, section 15(3) of the act requires: "The administrator shall require that a person of a prescribed class who holds a licence as an agency under this Act be a member of an association incorporated for the purposes in relation to that prescribed class as a condition of holding that licence." So, certainly when you read that and just as I referenced too, as well, the sporadic nature of the association itself in the past and being inactive in the Province too, as well, since 2006. In order to issue a licence under the act as it sits today seems unfair to the people who would choose this fine profession as a career. That should not be there. So a part of this act, in regard to what I am speaking to today is to repeal section 5(3).

Furthermore, referencing 5(3) on to section 15(4), it also allows the administrator to issue a conditional licence but, as well, it can be refused if they cannot show a membership in the association. Again, that is unfair to the person who is asking for the licence to conduct their affairs and work in this fine profession because the association really has not existed since 2006.

Then, pursuant to section 9 of the act, I believe, it says in the act that an applicant of a licence to conduct business as a private investigation or a security guard agency, except an agency which implies armoured vehicle guards shall also provide proof of membership in the Newfoundland Security Guard and Private Investigators Agencies Association Ltd. Again, in reference to that part of the act, section 9, it has been very, very sporadic over the years and non-existent since the 2006 area.

The Trade Practices Division of the Government Services have informed me as well, that we issue approximately seventy-five agency licences a year to applicants who must meet the requirement set out in 15(3) of the act and section 9 which makes it very, very hard in order for us to address the issues that these people need addressed when we have these erroneous sections within the act itself, and are not relevant to today's standards. I guess, in today's marketplace the membership in a trade organization is accepted really as a voluntary act and is not imposed and someone as a condition of their licence. That is accepted within the marketplace today and it is a general practice of the market in other professions as well.

With that, Mr. Speaker, the intentions that I am bringing to the House today, and I am asking for concurrence and support from not only the members on this side of the House but the members on the opposite side of the House, because I think this is very important to the people who choose this profession, that it will make it much, much easier, within the act itself, to issue the licences and have a certain flow through the act. In certain ways, it takes away some of the red tape that a person might have to go through with regard to providing or obtaining a licence and then working in the business itself.

The intention of the act is to repeal these sections that are referenced. They are 15(3), 15(4) and section 9, I believe, of the act itself. That is the intention of the actual piece that I bring to the House of Assembly.

I will take my seat now, Mr. Speaker, and welcome the comments of my hon. members of the House, but I think they will look at the act as well, the same way as I do, that it is an important piece that has to happen. It might be a little bit of housekeeping; you cannot get up and speak for hours and hours on the subject matter. I am sure that the people that are working in this particular industry – and I see that the hon. member across the House is guaranteeing me that he is only going to take about thirty seconds to a minute to address the issues because he seems to be in concurrence.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat in the House.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to be able to stand and make a few comments with regard to Bill 39.

The minister had it partly right when he said that I was only going to stand for thirty seconds, but he promised me that he would only be thirty seconds as well.

I am not going to take too much time, Mr. Speaker, but as the minister stated, it is An Act To Amend The Private Investigation And Security Services Act. The explanatory note, Mr. Speaker, is very straightforward and I think the minister explained it with regard to sections 15(3), (4) and (5), and section 9. Really, what it is, it is repealing some of the sections that are already in that particular bill.

The bill would amend this particular act "…to remove, as a condition of a licence, the requirement that an agency be a member of the Newfoundland Security Guards and Private Investigators Association Ltd."

First when I saw this, Mr. Speaker - and probably I will ask this question as we go along during the debate, probably in the committee stage. Some of the issues that came forward, more or less, we were wondering - it was unclear who had approached government to repeal this information. Generally speaking, some comments were made that seemed like the legislation involving public safety was to be watered down.

I will not go that far to say that, but we know in today's society how important it is with regard to security and private investigations associations. We know full well, not only in our Province, but throughout this great country and our neighbouring countries, the importance of security in the world today. Regardless, if it is a major organization or one of the seventy-five agencies that are here in the Province, which the minister noted, I believe that the legislation make sure that people have to be properly trained.

I have had incidents with regard to people who work with security groups here in St. John's, and for whatever reasons they were let go and had to go to appeals with them, trying to get their EI benefits. There were standards that were not met, and rightly so. So the owner of some of those securities made sure that this was followed through, they were trained properly, but for whatever reasons they let the rules and regulations slip by the wayside, but not to the point that there was anything major happened or any breaches of break and enter or anything like that.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very important issue and it was good to hear when the minister mentioned that it is going to be paramount in regard to the proper training of those people. It is a very important profession, more so today than in the past.

I know the minister made comments, too, with regard to the financial statements end of it, that it was more or less just looked at the trade organization end. Hopefully, with this new legislation, the rules and regulations will be tightened up. There will be more responsibility when it comes to reporting and so on.

I guess I was amazed at the number when he mentioned that seventy-five agencies apply for licences each and every year here in the Province. I take it that was for the full area of Newfoundland and Labrador. Not only when we look at the legislation with regard to the two or three clauses that will be repealed, I am sure that there is also a cleaning up of the act. We see that from time to time. Legislation, after certain time passes, different wording has to be changed to go with the rules and regulations that we see today. So, a lot of the issues with regard to legislation being changed has to do with the red tape and so on.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is very important, as the minister stated, to have a secure environment here in the Province for the business. Not only that, but when it comes to those private investigators and security businesses, it is very important to see that the rules and regulations are carried out. I guess there has to be a reason why this clause is being repealed, where people do not have to be a part of the Newfoundland Security Guards and Private Investigators Association. I guess probably some of the agencies that apply each year were not a part of that association and that piece of legislation will be repealed.

So having said that, Mr. Speaker, those are the only comments I have. Maybe the minister, when he has a chance later on, whether it is in committee, will be able to explain just a little where this change came from where individuals would not have to be required to be a member of the investigators association in Newfoundland and Labrador.

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 have the opportunity to speak to Bill 39, which is An Act To Amend The Private Investigation And Security Services Act. I thank the minister for his opening statements. I, too, will have brief comments.

I think this bill is important. Dealing with this issue is important because it does have to do with the safety of people in the Province. The private investigation and security services do play a very special role in the Province, within businesses, within the public sector, within government bodies, government buildings. They are all over the place. I, too, was surprised by the number of companies that exist. I had no idea that the number was as high as the minister has told us.

I have no problem whatsoever with the changes that are being suggested by the minister which are being brought forward in this bill. We have spoken to people in the industry, both to companies as well as to unionized members, to get a sense of their response to what is happening and there seems to be agreement that this does need to be done by all hands involved in the industry, and I am glad to see government responding to that.

I think it is also an opportunity for us to look at some of the issues that the industry is dealing with and issues that I would like the minister to think about. Right now, we are just dealing with a housekeeping issue and it is very simple to take care of, but I think there are more in-depth issues that people in the industry, both those who own companies as well as workers, who would like to see the government become involved in and would like to see the ministry become involved in.

One of it has to do with the licences for individuals and licensing individuals is something that government does, but we have become aware of the fact that government has fallen behind in its licensing, and because of this, some security firms have taken it upon themselves to issue licences. I do know that there are differing opinions out there. There are some who think government should not be involved at all and there are others, of course, who think government should be. I think what everybody has agreed upon is that there needs to be an efficient way of licensing so that things are not held up. I think that is the issue. I know that there are some people in the industry who think that it is a waste of time to have government involved. I do not think I agree with that. What I do agree with, that there should not be undue red tape and there should not be waiting times, because the waiting times affect the employees who are wanting to get into the industry. So I think it is a serious issue.

I think government needs to sit down with all those involved in the industry, with those who actually run the agencies, with the union – I think it is Steelworkers, USW – that represents unionized workers. So I think all hands need to sit down at the table, together with government, to try to get at how to deal with the licensing issue. I am sure the minister would be open to that. I would love it if he stands up later on, either in reading or in committee and says that he is open to this issue. It is a problem, and it is a problem that is affecting the industry having people, adequate people in the industry.

There are two things about those who work in the industry that also need to be looked at. One is the whole training issue. Training costs money, and some companies are now offering private training because the workers themselves cannot afford the training, and yet training is required. I really think government has to look at the provision of training. There are other areas – this is a global issue. For example, in home care, I think government needs to look at the provision of training as well, but here we are looking particularly at the security services. We do know that some of the programs out there are not even satisfying the industry, not satisfying the companies. I would like to see the government using our public college system – I understand that the College of the North Atlantic does have a very good training program for security personnel, and I think it really would be a role of government to get involved in helping with the cost of the training that people need in order to do the program.

There is a whole issue, too, of when one should have the training, and that is another discussion I think that needs to be had with industry. It would seem that people should have the training before they even start a job, because this is a serious job. Being involved in security services, in particular, requires very, very important skills. I would hope that the minister would agree with me, that training is essential, and nobody should be out there doing the work without having training first. Government should be involved in offering that training. It is expensive. A lot of the guards in particular are working for minimum wage or just above. Even those who are working inside of public institutions are working for $14 an hour. That is not enough money to pay for the training. The training program is expensive. This is a lot more important than the issue that we are dealing with here in this bill. The change that we are making is important but it is much more important to have people who are trained to do their job and that that training is offered to them if they are going to go into this industry.

The other issue which also is a bit of a universal issue, not just related to security guards, but as I mentioned a minute ago, security guards get paid, some of them minimum wage or just above minimum wage. There is a disparity between what security guards get in the private sector from private companies and what security guards are paid if they are working in a public sphere. For example, like working at one of our hospitals within buildings of Eastern Health. It is similar to the disparity that exists between people who work with ambulance services in the private or community-based services and those who work for ambulance attached to a health authority. There is a disparity in the wage. The work is the same. The training that is expected is the same; therefore, the wage should be the same. What we are lacking here are provincial standards that need to be put in place.

So, there are a number of issues in what I have talked about here that are related to the bill, in that they all deal with the whole issue of security services. I once again say to the minister, that the issue for me is that he look not just at this housekeeping piece that we are going to be changing with this bill but that he look at these problems that exist in the industry and sit with industry and with the unions that represent some of the workers and try to work them out. Some of them, all of them, I guess, involve money but it would be money well spent. There has to be a way to make sure that the standards that exist for workers who are unionized, the standards that exist for the companies that employ, the standards that exist for the government itself through, for example, its health authorities, that all the standards are the same.

There is a role for government in making sure that happens because government does have a responsibility to monitor the industry, to regulate the industry, and because of that, government then has to have a role in ensuring that training happens. People who are working for $9, $10, $11, $14 an hour cannot afford to do the training, and that standards exist with regard to the training as well. It is not just enough to say do the training. A program that is being done needs to also meet standards. I do not think that happens. I am aware that people out there are not satisfied with all programs, and I think that is problematic as well. We do have a public college and that college does offer a program which I understand is very good.

There is a way for government to work this. There is a way for government to be involved in the training of the personnel, and there is a way for government to ensure that the industry is an industry that is respected. I really have come to appreciate this industry and I think government needs to respect that industry and to respect the workers in that industry and to ensure that the industry is there for the good of our community.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Government Services speaks now he will close the debate on second reading of Bill 39.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am ever so happy to get up on my feet again to close second reading. I certainly welcome the comments of my hon. members across the House.

As I referenced, the association itself was totally focused on the trade side of the industry and not so much on education and training as I would like. So in that regard, I brought forward those amendments in regard to repealing that part of the act.

Also, as well, in regard to the hon. Leader of the NDP, that my door is always open. I am ever so happy to meet with industry in pertaining to any of the legislation that I have in my department which constitutes, really, one-third of all legislation across all government departments. My door - as long as I am the Minister of Government Services, I have no problem with sitting down with industry, listening to their issues, listening to their problems and trying to work through solutions that may be able to address those issues and make it better for the employees, make it even better for the employers, and whatever I can do.

When it comes down to wages, well I, as the Minister of Government Services, will not have a whole lot of influence there as well. You must also remember that it is private industry. They dictate the wage levels and the salary scales and that kind of stuff. We, as a government, back in the early part, when we took government after 2003, made a commitment in regard to the minimum wage, which we have addressed and moving that forward as well.

I would like to see, as the hon. member across the House, everybody in the Province in the perfect world making $20-plus an hour. Is that possible? Probably not, but in the mean time, we have to strive to have each and every Newfoundlander and Labradorian make a decent wage when they are out there working on behalf of the public, the industry and whatever they are doing in their lives.

Certainly, with that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat in the House, then I will speak again in regard to committee. The comments of my hon. members across the House is not lost on myself and I would meet in regard to the industry. This is just a housekeeping piece of work, but I am always cognizant of the total industry to itself. If I, as the Minister of Government Services, can do anything to make their industry better when it comes to the employees, employers, I am all for it.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat in the House and wait for committee version in a future time.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Private Investigation And Security Services Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Private Investigation And Security Services Act. (Bill 39)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 39 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 Private Investigation And Security Services Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 39)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, Order 5, second reading of a bill, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statue Law. (Bill 40)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 40, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statue Law be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statue Law". (Bill 40)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce Bill 40, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statue Law.

Mr. Speaker, this is an exercise that we go through periodically to review legislation. In every session, not in every session of the House, but approximately every eighteen months or so we go through this exercise of reviewing and amending various pieces of legislation to recover anomalies and errors.

The purpose of this bill is to bring before the House of Assembly matters in the statute law that require legislative correction as a result of amendments that might have been made in previous sessions or enactments that have been made in previous sessions. These amendments are brought to the Minister of Justice's attention every so often and they are technical in nature, Mr. Speaker, and they are not matters of policy.

In addition to the amendments, aimed at the correction of errors or anomalies, the bill also proposed to repeal a number of acts and regulations that are either obsolete or spent.

As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, this usually takes place about every eighteen or so, the Minister of Justice will present this bill, wherein the judgment of the Office of the Legislative Counsel, enough amendments or enough errors, enough anomalies, have been discovered to warrant a new bill, a new amendment.

We would not do it, Mr. Speaker, as the anomalies and amendments are discovered because we would be doing it too often, so we allow a number of them to build up before this bill is brought forward.

Some of the errors, Mr. Speaker, that this amendment will address will be, for example, basically simple things, like corrections of errors in cross-referencing. For example, clause 4 of the bill would amend the paragraph of the Child and Youth Advocate Act to correct – no, I am sorry, it will correct the Architects Act. Clause 3 of the Architects Act will correct an error in cross-referencing.

There are also errors in citation, and clause 4 of the bill would amend the Child and Youth Advocate Act, for example, to correct an error in citation.

There are typographical errors that have been uncovered in legislation. Clause 7, for example, would correct subsection (5) of the Insurance Contracts Act to correct a typographical error.

Clause 9 would amend a part of the Lands Act to correct an error in syntax, for example, and erroneously repeated words, deletion of erroneously repeated words, would appear for example in paragraph 19 of the Marriage Act where the amendment would delete erroneously repeated words.

These are things that have been picked up over time, Mr. Speaker, by lawyers in their duties and their activities, by the courts, or by our own staff and brought to the attention of the Minister of Justice, and every eighteen months or so there are enough of them being compiled to bring a bill before this House for amendments.

The bill, Mr. Speaker, would also repeal a number of acts and regulations that are obsolete or spent. Periodically, between revisions of statutes and regulations, as these spent or obsolete acts and regulations come to the attention of the Legislative Counsel's office, a list of them are prepared, and either a special repeal act is prepared for consideration of the House or they can be included in the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act such as this; there are two ways to do it. In this case the repealing of the acts and regulations that are obsolete or spent, we are bringing it in this Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act.

This is basically cleanup legislation, Mr. Speaker, and I do not anticipate much debate or controversy on it in the House. I ask the support of all hon. members in passing this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My comments will be very brief. I would concur with the minister, of course. These acts are common here. We see about one a year. We pass a fair bit of legislation as the years pass. Over time, people find out that we have made some minor glitches and errors. That usually comes about, you find these things, with the passage of time and the fact that you have actually used the piece of legislation that you did.

Even the word, even in the title of the act, it is called : anomaly and errors. So it says pretty clear what happens. It happens with some regularity, I guess, because that is why we find ourselves back here.

In the explanation clauses that accompanies this act you can see, it says: To delete erroneously repeated words. In other words, there were some words erroneously repeated in an act that did not need to be there, so we are going to clean it up now and take it out. Likewise, a typographical error, a word was erroneously left out, a word was erroneously left in. Sometimes it is to appeal an act and so on. Quite often, something is obsolete or spent and it is no longer to have it in there.

There is nothing magnanimous about this. There is no big piece of substantive legislation here such as if you deal with the creation of a Nalcor or when they expropriated, for example, the Abitibi rights in Central Newfoundland. It is not a substantive piece of legislation of that nature.

This, in fact, is a piece of cleanup, housekeeping legislation and we will certainly be having no comment on it. It is necessary; it keeps our statutes nice and tidy. We have to do it from time to time.

It is good to see that the minister has had his first bill in this House. I congratulate him, by the way, on his appointment of Minister of Justice and Attorney General and to see that he will always remember, I guess, that Bill 40, in this session, was the first bill he ever brought to the floor of the House as the Minister of Justice. Congratulations to you again, sir, and you have no fear of any debate from the Opposition with respect to this particular bill.

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 stand and speak to this bill, a bill which in some senses is not substantive because it is, as has been described by the minister, a bill that is dealing with housekeeping issues in terms of language or technical amendments that are needed or some changes are substantive in that they relate to changes in policy. So, certainly, I am not going to be having any problems with the bill itself and will be voting for it because it is essential.

I would like to refer to one of the clauses in the bill because it is related to an actual change that is happening because of a change of policy, and I would just like to take a couple of minutes to speak to that policy. I am talking about clause 6. Clause 6, of course, is dealing with the Income Tax Act. What it is dealing with is the fact that in the Budget for 2009, I think it was the 2009 Budget, there was a change and it was a good change. I am not criticizing the change. There was a change in the income threshold for paying income tax, for paying provincial income tax. The income threshold was increased from $13,511 to $15,911 for individuals. So over a $2,000 increase, about a $2,400 increase in the income threshold for individuals, and there was almost a $5,000 increase in the income threshold for families from $21,825 to $26,625. That is good. I note that government noted at the time that it did this in March, that there would be an additional 22,450 individuals receiving a reduction in their provincial income tax, and that is good. I am glad it happened, but we all know that the amount of income tax that would have been reduced for people at that low end of the scale was pretty small.

Now the change was made by government for this taxation year, the taxation year of 2009, because they recognized that people had minimum wage increased. This was to help benefit people so that they would get a bigger benefit from the increase in their minimum wage. Now we all know that the minimum wage has been growing at increments of fifty cents each time that it has gone up, and by the year of 2010 it will be up to $10. I guess the only point I am making is that when this action took place in the Budget for 2009, it is good that it took place, but it is pretty minimal when it comes to helping the people in this Province. What I am asking this government to do – and I know this is not the purview of the Minister of Justice, but the Minister of Finance is here in the House and I know he is listening to me, that we cannot sit on our laurels and say when we get next year to 2010, there is nothing else to do now because the minimum wage has been reached, we now are paying $10 an hour. Well, we are going to find in 2010, that paying $10 an hour minimum wage is still going to be leaving people under the low-income cut off. They are still going to be living in poverty.

So, I would use this opportunity as a moment to remind us of that. That we are going to have to continue looking at the minimum wage, continue looking at trying to get as many people up to $20 an hour, as the former minister said when he was speaking to his bill. Why we think helping people with $10 an hour is a great thing really surprises me, when we know people are still living in poverty. So we can up the threshold. We could actually say no income tax at all from a certain amount down, $30,000 down. There are more things that could be done but we are still dealing with very small numbers for these individuals because their income is so small. So I would really impress upon all of us, that we do have an obligation to make sure that we are all benefiting from where we are right now in this Province financially.

By changing this and putting the new thresholds into the Income Tax Act today, let's not think, okay, we have done it now; we have done all that needs to be done. I would like to think that next year we will be standing here again and making more changes with regard to income tax for low-income persons.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Well, first of all, I want to congratulate the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for shepherding this bill through the House, through second reading of the House. For those of us who earned our living as lawyers practising law, it is certainly an honour and a privilege to occupy the office of Attorney General and Minister of Justice. I know that the current minister is certainly proud of that fact and I know that he is dedicated to doing a great job, and I know he will do a great job. I know the Government House Leader is also a former Attorney General and Minister of Justice and I am very pleased to see that the first Justice bill has gone through this House and everyone is certainly in support.

I am standing up today - and the other thing I wanted to do, of course, is congratulate the new Member for The Straits & White Bay North, welcome him formally to the House of Assembly. I had an opportunity to meet him earlier and welcome him earlier. I met him when I was up in St. Anthony doing, I think, pre-budget consultations at one time, and I dropped over to his business. If I recall, he gave me some of the water that he manufactures there. I have to tell you that it is an outstanding, outstanding product. My wife and I have become customers and we enjoy the product very much and we encourage our friends to sample it as well, especially when our friends come down from the mainland. We tell them what their water is like. I told him that I was a little disappointed the day that the local convenience store near my house where we buy the water has stopped selling the product. We have complained and hopefully they will, now that they see it in the House of Assembly, maybe they will reconsider the decision.

I would like to say a few words in response to the Leader of the NDP, and I can assure the Leader of the NDP that this government, probably more than any government in the history of this Province, is certainly concerned about low-income individuals in this Province. She was referring, I believe, to the Income Tax Act, the low-income tax reduction. I think the first time that that was reduced was under Minister Sullivan when he was the Minister of Finance, and that removed so many thousand people. I do not remember the actual numbers. That removed people from the tax rolls so that low-income people did not have to spend any money on provincial income tax in this Province, and I think that was further enhanced.

I can assure her that this government will continue to look at ways to give help to low-income citizens, particularly our seniors and our pre-seniors, and we have done this in things like the Home Heating Rebate. I believe when we first came into office there were maybe 11,000 people receiving that. It was $100. Now there are, I think, 76,000 people receiving the Home Heating Rebate. That is certainly one way to help. The other way is seniors, the low-income seniors' tax benefit. We made a couple of changes there. I know recently we increased the amount. I think it was from $400-and-something up to around $800, and that is a cheque that the seniors in this Province receive every October. Then I think this past year, in the Budget we recognized that if you have a couple and then one of them should pass on, that the cost of that single person, the costs still remain high and it was important to ensure that the single senior received as much and therefore we upped the amount for the single senior as well.

There are so many things that you cannot remember them all from memory, but I want to ensure you that we are not stopping here. I know I used to hear, when minimum wage was whatever it was when we first came into office, and people said it was not enough, and now it is going to up $10. It will be $10, I think, in July. Of course, people will continue to say it is not enough but at least it was an improvement. It was better than it was, and I can assure the members of this House that this government will always be conscious of the need of low-income citizens in this Province.

I cannot help but say a few words about the poverty reduction initiative as well. I think there is over $130 million-odd a year now being spent on initiatives to help people as we pursue a goal of taking this Province from being a Province with the highest rate of poverty in the country to a Province that has one of the lowest rates of poverty in Canada. That particular program has been said by many, is a model in the country. I understand the Province of New Brunswick in their budget, that I believe they are going to bring in tomorrow, are intending to introduce a poverty reduction scheme, not with as much money but they are only starting.

I know the National Association For Welfare, I believe they recently changed their name, but I know they have talked about our program as a model for the country because we stopped just thinking in departments, we stopped thinking in silos, it is a cross-government initiative or initiatives to help address, in a multi-faceted way, poverty. That is something that all of us, regardless of our political persuasion, we all look forward to the elimination of poverty in our country. I look forward to the federal government, hopefully, joining the provinces that are doing this in a great fight against poverty in this country. I know the Premier of this Province is dedicated to this. I know he has shown initiative in this and I just want to assure the member that this is not the end. This is, as they say in that movie, this is the end of the beginning and we will continue, hopefully, given our circumstances, given these tough economic times, that we will be able to continue to look after the most vulnerable in our society.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will urge passage of this bill and take my seat.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, if he speaks now he shall close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members opposite for their comments, and I thank the Opposition House Leader for his kind words and also for his co-operation and the co-operation of the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi in this debate.

I want to concur with my colleague, the Minister of Finance, on his comments with regard to the initiatives of this government regarding poverty reduction, especially the income tax reduction levels. It is probably one of the best initiatives that this Province has seen in a long time. So in response to the comments of the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I would like to concur with my colleague's comments on that.

I also wanted to state, Mr. Speaker, as the newly minted Minister of Justice and Attorney General both on my right and on my left I have all kinds of expertise to draw on because I sit between the two former Ministers of Justice. I can lean in either direction for expertise.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I thank the members for their comments in debate and urge this bill to go to second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law. (Bill 40)

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

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

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 40)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, Order 6, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Law With Respect To The Definition Of Spouse. (Bill 41)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise to introduce Bill 41, An Act To Amend The Law With Respect To The Definition Of Spouse.

The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to "…amend various of the province's Acts and regulations to reflect recent developments in the law respecting spouses. The principal thrust of the amendments is to change the language of provisions that currently, either explicitly or implicitly, assume that spouses must be members of the opposite sex." Within the last ten years the laws in this country have changed to recognize the equality rights of same sex, cohabitating couples and the right of persons of the same sex to marry.

In 2001, Mr. Speaker, this House of Assembly passed An Act To Amend A Law To Consider Same Sex Cohabitation Partners In The Same Manner As Opposite Sex Cohabitating Partners. These amendments were introduced consequent to a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case entitled, M versus H. M versus H, Mr. Speaker, is a 1999 landmark decision of this country's highest court on the rights of same-sex couples to equal treatment under the Constitution of Canada. Ruling on the appeal of a case originally brought by a same-sex couple in Ontario, the Supreme Court held that the exclusion of same-sex couples from the definition of common-law spouse under the Ontario Family Law Act was in violation of equality rights under section 15 of the Charter and could not be justified under section 1 of the Charter.

This important decision, Mr. Speaker, found that it was constitutionally imperative under Canadian Charter laws to provide equal treatment for same-sex, common-law couples and opposite sex, common-law couples. The Supreme Court, in its decision, called upon the lawmakers of Canada to rectify all Canadian laws rather than force gays and lesbians to resort to the courts.

In 2004, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the right of persons of the same sex to marry in a decision entitled, Reference re Same-Sex Marriage. This case was a reference question to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the constitutional validity of same-sex marriage in Canada. Prior to this case, Mr. Speaker, the issue regarding the constitutional validity of same-sex marriage had been considered by several of the provinces' appeal courts, all of them holding it as constitutionally valid.

It was not until December, 2004 that two same-sex couples filed an application in Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division, seeking a declaration that the civil definition of marriage for civil purposes is: The lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all other and that a civil marriage between two persons of the same sex is therefore lawful and valid in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the traditional common law definition of marriage is defined in an 1866 English decision, entitled: Hyde v. Hyde, to be, "…the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others." That is representative of the common law definition in Newfoundland and Labrador at that time.

In this case, it was brought in 2004 to the Trial Division, entitled Pottle et al. v. Canada in Newfoundland and Labrador, then Chief Justice Green of the Supreme Court Trial Division confirmed that a civil marriage between two persons of the same sex is lawful and valid in this Province.

As a result of these court decisions, Mr. Speaker, the federal government introduced a Civil Marriage Act, the full title of which is An Act Respecting Certain Aspects Of Legal Capacity For Marriage For Civil Purposes. That act was introduced in July, 2005, to legalize same-sex marriage in Canada.

The law codifies the definition of marriage for the first time in Canadian law, expanding on the traditional common law understanding of civil marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. This legislation defines civil marriage as the lawful union of two persons, to the exclusion of all others. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, same-sex marriages are being conducted throughout Canada, including our Province.

Mr. Speaker, in the spring of this year, the House of Assembly passed the Vital Statistics Act, 2009, and the Marriage Act. Both of these new pieces of legislation define spouse as either of two persons who are married to each other. Other changes to statute law are also necessary now respecting the definition of spouse. This is because our provincial acts and regulations continue to define spouses as persons of the opposite sex who are married to one another, or they refer to husband and wife, rather than two persons who are spouses of one another, as contemplated by this bill.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, would amend eight pieces of legislation and two pieces of subordinate legislation, by incorporating a unified and consistent definition of the term spouse, which would include same gender spouses. The eight pieces of legislative I refer to include the Chattels Real Act, the City of Corner Brook Act, the City of Mount Pearl Act, the Evidence Act, the Family Homes Expropriation Act, the Family Law Act, the Fatal Accidents Act, and the Jury Act. The two subordinate pieces of legislation include Legal Aid Regulations, and Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will bring our Province's legislation up-to-date in terms of court decisions and existing statute law in this Province, and all other provinces and territories, with respect to the definition of spouse. I believe the proposed amendments, Mr. Speaker, are timely and necessary.

I thank you for the opportunity to discuss Bill 41, and I ask support of all hon. members in passing this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Just a few comments on Bill 41. Again, we seem to be amending or changing legislation to keep up with the times. Obviously, society usually operates – or I should say the law operates years, months, if not years, and sometimes decades beyond society in terms of what is acceptable, how you need to change your laws, for example, to keep up with societal circumstances.

It took quite some time, for example, in this Province, as the Minister has alluded to. It was actually on December 21, 2004 that Chief Justice Derek Green in this Province ruled that you could have same-sex marriages, and I do understand that it was two days later, on December 23, that the first same-sex marriage took place here before Mayor Andy Wells, at that time, and the mayor married them in a civil ceremony. It was a lady by the name of French, I do believe, and a lady by the name of Pottle. So that was our first instance in the Province where same-sex marriages were, in fact, done within the confines of the newly accepted law.

The Minister of Finance today was the then Minister of Justice of the day back then in 2004. The Member for Humber East, who was the Minister of Justice at the time, and said yes, he agreed with Chief Justice Green's ruling, there would be no appeals, it was accepted by government. So finally, we had caught up and moved on as we should have.

Unfortunately, of course, there were some laws that were still in our system that did not have that recognition written right into them. So again, we have to go back now and do some housecleaning so that we get rid of those offensive words. The Evidence Act, for example, in our Province which deals with the rules of evidence and how they are used and cannot and can be used in our court system, talked about a wife or a husband. No reference to the fact that it could be a same-sex marriage. We have, for example, in our Family Law Act a reference to a man and a woman. So these are offensive in our current societal circumstances of a man and a woman and husband and wives. It implies that you cannot have same-sex marriages, and that is not the law today.

So finally, we have had a chance to go back now, since 2004, several of these incidents of existing law which still do not and are not in compliance in terms of use of the word and the definition of the word spouse, we are finally catching up with those as well and we are making the appropriate changes here.

It is good to see, of course, that this is happening. I am sure there are probably other instances in other statutes that we have not come across yet, and with time, we will back here either doing an amendment again to definition or it might be something minor enough that we can deal with it in terms of the anomalies type legislation that the minister dealt with earlier. In any case, I feel certain that we have not been lucky or fortunate enough to find every incident so that we could eradicate right here today and now, but, no doubt, as it is uncovered and as it is found, we will see ourselves dealing with these types of situations again in the future.

So, we will, minister, be supportive of this particular Bill 41. As I say, at least eleven more pieces of legislation now in this Province will be rectified, as it ought to be, to recognize what legally does constitute a spouse today.

Thank you.

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

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

I am very pleased to speak to Bill 41. I think it is a significant bill, even though it is just amendments to other acts with changes in language, but these amendments are extremely important. I was really glad that the minister took the time to give a good background to why we are where we are today in needing these amendments.

We will all remember that in May of this year, May 2009, assent was given to the amended Marriage Act. In the amended Marriage Act the definition of spouse means either of two persons who are married to each other. So that one phrase, very succinctly, tells us what our status is today in this Province with regard to marriage. Two persons married to each other; no definition by gender or sex.

I think it was a proud day when that happened in our Province when, back in 2004, marriage was allowed for same-sex persons, because I think it showed that we recognized the right of all people no matter what their gender, no matter what their sexuality. It is so important that we have come to that stage in our society.

I would like to use this opportunity to talk about the fact, how we have come to that stage in legislation and in practice, for example, with regard to marriage, and that is really great, but we cannot sit back and just rest on our laurels because of the fact homophobia is still alive and well in our society. So, we still have a lot of work to do. It is not enough that legislatively and legally we recognize the right of people to get married, no matter what their gender or sexuality, get married to each other. It is really good that we are doing it, but we have to realize that there are still an awful lot of people out there in our society who do not agree with that. There are a lot of people out in our society who do express homophobia in different forms. I think as legislators we have a responsibility to recognize that, and to recognize how we can deal with it. We can deal with it in one way here in the House of Assembly and we do that by passing legislation and making sure that the rights of all persons are recognized.

It is significant that on December 10 we do recognize Human Rights Day and the UN Declaration of Human Rights, so that in this month we are now making these changes to language in the varies pieces of our legislation so that every piece of legislation is gender neutral in reference to men and women, in reference to husband and wives, in reference to spouses, that it will cover everybody. We can do that much here in the House of Assembly but there is a lot more work that government can do through its departments. For example, the Department of Education, I think, has a very key role to play with regard to homophobia in our society, because I think - there are a lot of educators here in the House of Assembly and I think we all know that it is so important that change happens with young people, that they are the ones who are being formed, they are the ones who are going to bring change forward as we change as a society.

So, whatever about trying to change the attitude of – I am not even going to name age, because it is not age. Some of us know people who are eighty years old, who are more open and less prejudice than somebody who is twenty. So, it is not an age issue but it still is very important that we start with our young people while they are in the educational system to deal with all kinds of societal issues, homophobia being one of those issues. I want to bring it up because recently Egale, which is the organization for equality for gays and lesbians, which is a national organization, and I made reference to Egale yesterday in the House of Assembly. They did a survey across Canada, with schools right across Canada, and this survey was also done in schools here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Department of Education co-operated with Ms Susan Rose, who was a teacher for twenty-one years. She took early retirement because of frustration with homophobia in the school system, and she is now working full time to deal with homophobia in the school system. She became aware herself because of discrimination against her and she experienced and witnessed harassment in the schools based on sexual orientation. I know that all of us, those of us who have children and those who do not have children, would hate to see our children, number one, harass others, or if one of our children identified him or herself as gay or lesbian or trans-gendered, we would hate to have our child harassed by somebody else.

This survey that was done in schools in the Province with the co-operation of the Department of Education showed that we have a lot of harassment going on in the schools in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have students who are being hurt, who are being damaged. They experience all kinds of homophobic attitudes played out, the behaviour of other students. Ms Rose, in the report that she did, had stories of people harassed and injured, or having to change schools to get away from homophobia. Ms Rose gave the officials the message, and she gave it loudly and clearly to the department, that this is a human rights issue. Kids are entitled to a safe learning environment. When she got the permission to do the survey, she was able to also do education as she was doing that survey, and the results of that survey in our schools will be out soon. We have the results of the survey on the national level, and according to Ms Rose the results are not out yet for the Province but unfortunately the provincial statistics are probably going to look like the national ones, which are not very good.

What Ms Rose is now doing is not just doing surveys, she is also delivering workshops. She has received approval to deliver a workshop on homophobia and that workshop was developed by Planned Parenthood. She took it to 1,200 students in schools in the Western School District. She wants to continue offering that workshop, and I think this workshop is so important because the workshop is obviously an education tool. What she is doing by going out there into the schools, sharing her own experience, and at the same time getting the students in touch with each other and their experience, what she is doing is invaluable for our society. Because it is no good for us to have the law that we are recognizing here today and making these changes in this bill if teenagers, and younger than teenagers - kids are starting to come out earlier now. We do have changes in society, and teenagers and preteens are starting to come out with regard to their sexuality but they have to know that it is safe. It does not help them to know that two thirty-year-old women or two thirty-year-old men got married down the road if they themselves do not feel safe in their own school and in their own society and in their own community. So, we have a lot of work to do.

We need to change the laws, and that is important. We have to have laws in place. For example, there was a time when gays and lesbians had no rights whatsoever in our societies. None, and we have gotten beyond that but we now have to educate. We have to educate teachers, we have to educate administrators. It goes beyond how people are treated in school. Even how gays and lesbians are treated in the health care system is very interesting; very tormenting, actually. I have had gay and lesbian people tell me about their experience in hospitals when they have had to deal with the medical system. There are all kinds of implications to the changing of attitude that we have to encourage with regard to equality and justice for gays, lesbians and trans-gendered persons.

So, I am really delighted that we, as a Province, moved very quickly as we did on the issue of same-sex marriage. I am delighted that we made the legislative change with regard to the Marriage Act in the spring and I am delighted that we now are making sure that all of our legislation fits within the structures that we have legislatively created. I hope that as a result of this action today we will all reflect a bit more on the situation of gays, lesbians, and trans-gendered persons. I would encourage the Minister of Education to have the Department of Education work closely with the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association because the NLTA has been doing good work with regard to the issue of equality and justice for gays, lesbians and trans-gendered persons.

We have a big job to do. I know that bullying is an issue in our schools, but sometimes bullying is not just a nondescript, amorphous kind of thing, sometimes it is quite focused and sometimes the bullying is focused towards gays, lesbians and trans-gendered persons.

I did make reference to that in the House yesterday in response to a statement by the Minister of Education that it would be really good that the program we now have in our schools, with regard to our schools being safe places, have a focus with regard to safety for young people who are coming out with their sexuality in a way that has not been as prominent before. It is a good thing that we do now have more tolerance in society so that they feel they can come out, but we have got to make sure that we keep it safe so that they can do it safely and others will be encouraged after them. This is part of who they are as individuals, this is part of their health, this is part of their future, being able to say who they are, just as much at ten or fifteen, as when they are thirty.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure today to rise to make some comments with regard to Bill 41, An Act To Amend The Law With Respect To The Definition Of Spouse.

In this Chamber, we really only have the ability to deal with civil and legal matters, this is not a place to deal with moral issues or emotional issues that revolve around same-sex marriage. I think that, for me, it is a pleasure to get up because of what this legislation represents.

It is very clear that the laws of the land have made it more equitable for same-sex couples to marry, to enter into union. One of the things that we really have to underlie this whole issue is that marriages, in many respects, are very much a legal contract as it is an emotional contract. This is where governments come in; this is where we can deal with the equities and the legal sides of marriages.

If you look through the timeline of the way that we have dealt with these issues, 1999 was the first time that the Supreme Court even dealt with the idea of same-sex couples. In 2001, as a result of that, this House provided legislation which outlined that same-sex, cohabitating couples would be dealt with in the same way as opposite sex cohabitating couples.

From there, in 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriages were, in fact, valid. Later on, in 2004, Justice Green upheld that. Shortly after that, as was stated earlier, Mayor Wells performed the first same-sex marriage. It should be noted that these were two females.

It is also noteworthy that the first same-sex marriage of males in Newfoundland was performed by our Member for Mount Pearl North, in his former capacity as the Mayor for Mount Pearl, very early, I believe it was in 2005 or just shortly after, he did perform that service. Now, that bit of research is not carved in stone, but to the best of available information he was the first.

Now when we talk about the legal union of two people it extends far beyond just some sort of a sanctioned right to be together. The legal side of it deals also with health care benefits, it deals with pensions, it deals with a number of other legal ramifications that, for many years, have been only preferred to different sex marriages.

What we have seen over the last number of years is the ability for people to come together, as a loving couple, and to build a life together, based on exclusive relationship with each other. In the course of building that life, they also build financial and legal obligations to each other, to the marriage, and in the eventuality of perhaps that breaking down, some of the remedies that each of them are entitled to at that end of it.

From a personal point of view, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that my life, and the life of my family has been enriched by the friendships that we have had with same-sex couples through the years. It has been very interesting to watch my children come to a realization that two men were, in fact, in a relationship, or two women were, in fact, in a relationship and then, later on, they were permitted to marry.

This has been really a catalyst for some wonderful conversation around the dinner table. It has been an opportunity for my wife and I to sit down and explain and to provide opportunity to, I guess, raise our children in the spirit of inclusiveness and acceptance. Because of that, we feel that we have done a reasonable job in getting our children prepared to go out into the real world.

I listened to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi talk about homophobia, and it would be a wonderful thing if we could just wave some legislative wand and all of a sudden that would be gone, but the reality is you cannot legislate attitudes. Attitudes are changed through cultural engagement, through institutions like this House, the Supreme Court, the House of Parliament, putting in place mechanisms that say this type of prejudicial treatment will not be tolerated. It provides penalties for people who decide to go against it. That is part of the process that brings society to a place where it wants to be.

One only has to look at the racial tensions in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s. Governments were loathe to put in measures that would go against racism because, I guess, a lot of people would have said your political future is done if you decide that you are going to do something about it. It took a tremendous amount of courage to bring in the types of things – integrating schools and bussing, and those types of policies and programs that allowed people to get up-close-and-personal with people of a different race.

In providing those legal opportunities, in providing - I guess in some ways mandating - that this integration take place, what you see is that people got to understand something that they did not understand before or they were perhaps afraid of because this is how they had been raised.

My father was a lawyer with the Department of Justice a number of years ago. He came into the legal profession very late in life. As part of his role, he was actually the human rights commissioner for this Province. As part of the role, he was also on a United Nations delegation to Geneva at another human rights conference. One of the things that he said that really struck me - and you have to understand that this is in contrast to these things I have just outline in terms of his career. He said: On some levels, I am still a racist. Now, this is a very interesting statement from someone who is a human rights commissioner. So, of course, you cannot leave an opening like that and not go through it. So I asked him to explain it a little further. He said, on a conscious level I have no problem with people who are different from me, but on an emotional level I still feel a twinge. I still feel maybe a little reaction that causes me to think in a way or to react in a way that on a rational level I dislike about myself. I accept that that is who I am. I accept that is how I was raised, and I also accept that it is not where I want to be. It is not where I want my children to be, and I will do what I can to make sure that this does not become the norm in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi talked about homophobia. It is there. Many of us will perhaps have that same sort of a twinge, but we will work very hard against it. Attitudes are changing. In 1999 I started to teach at a junior high, and one of my roles was to teach sex education. In that role we talked a bit about homosexuality. It was interesting to watch the reaction of the students. They reacted hard, negatively, fast and loud against the idea that this should be brought up - it was not my concern because it was going to be brought up anyway – and we talked through it. Whether I changed some minds or not, who's to say? I hope I did.

However, eight years later, the same course, the same age group, and when the discussion of homosexuality did arise the reaction was very, very different. People were making informed comments. People were talking about friends they knew. People were talking about other people in the school who they knew, and who were not being harassed, and who were not being singled out, and who were not being bullied because of their homosexuality. A number of years later, I am very pleased to say that my children have a number of friends who are homosexual who have come out, as it were, and they include them in all of their social activities in a very positive way. Again, it just delights me to see, it is not only them but also their friends.

So, Mr. Speaker, just by way of conclusion, I would like to run through some of the articles that are being taken care of by this piece of legislation today. Number one is the Evidence Act. I have not included all of them here, but in this Evidence Act it is basically the right of a spouse not to have to testify against the other spouse. It is something that we have always accepted for years. Under the old definitions perhaps someone could make a technicality out of it, Mr. Speaker, technicality removed.

Family law; in particular with business dealings; again, the technicalities could come up where man and woman are defined as spouse. Jury duty, the family unit is redefined. It is redefined so that if one person is called the second person in that now family unit is excluded from jury duty because both cannot come in at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, that concludes my comments. I, again, fully support this legislation and I expect a speedy passage of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

I thank the members opposite for their comments, their participation in the debate and their expressed support of this bill. I encourage the bill now for second reading.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Law With Respect To The Definition Of Spouse. (Bill 41)

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

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

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Law With Respect To The Definition Of Spouse", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 41)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 39, 40 and 41.

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 bills.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Kelly): The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, Bill 39.

CHAIR: Order, please!

We are now debating Bill 39.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Private Investigation And Security Services Act". (Bill 39)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Private Investigation And Security Services Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, Bill 40.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 40.

A bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law". (Bill 40)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 15 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 15 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

On motion, clause 2 through 15 inclusive 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.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I would like to call Bill 41, An Act To Amend The Law With Respect To The Definition Of Spouse.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 41.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Law With Respect To The Definition Of Spouse". (Bill 41)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 11 inclusive.

CHAIR: Clauses 2 to 11 inclusive.

Shall they carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

On motion, clauses 2 through 11 inclusive 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.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Law With Respect To The Definition Of Spouse.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee rise and report Bills 39, 40, and 41.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bills 39, 40 and 41.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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 Humber Valley.

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred to, and have directed me to report Bills 39, 40 and 41 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 39, 40 and 41 carried without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bills be referred for a third reading?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are going to go to the Order Paper now, Order 2 which is Address in Reply.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to comment, as we call Address in Reply, that when a new member of the House of Assembly speaks for the first time that we certainly, as we do, I guess, all of the time in this House, listen intently, quietly and with respect. I certainly anticipate that if the new member here for The Straits & White Bay speaks that we will all give him the due respect that we give each other all of the time, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to take my place in this House of Assembly. Thank you for allowing me to share what is referred to as my maiden speech.

I would like to begin my speech with gratitude from which all things in life ought to start. It is first appropriate to pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Trevor Taylor, for the years he served as MHA for the people of The Straits & White Bay North. Anyone who serves public life in this Province, no matter what political box they come in, should be commended for their service.

Next, I express my deepest thankfulness and appreciation for support, kindness and trust shown and conveyed during my election campaign. I thank all who assisted and encouraged me and brought me here today, particularly my hard working volunteers, my dedicated campaign team, my friends and my family members.

My standing here today in this great House of Assembly, however, with my esteemed colleague, is the result of a sacred covenant passed to me by the all inspiring people of The Straits & White Bay North. For their vote of confidence, I am eternally grateful and bountifully blessed.

I am certain the hon. members who travelled to the district during the by-election found not just a region graced with resilient and interconnected communities, but proud and determined people who are bounded by their blessings as well as their challenges.

Geographically, as many of you are aware, The Straits & White Bay North extends above the rest of the Island portion of the Province and occupies a significant part of the top of the great Northern Peninsula. It is separated from Labrador by the Strait of Belle Isle. Within its boundaries are some 10,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who live in communities along this magnificent shoreline from Anchor Point through to Flower's Cove; on to Cook's Harbour, up to Noddy Bay and down along the northeast side of the district into communities and coves such as: St. Anthony, Main Brook, Roddickton, Conche and Englee.

While The Straits & White Bay North is but one of forty-eight electoral districts across our beautiful Province, to me it is an extraordinary district; not just because we have the World UNESCO Heritage site at L'Anse aux Meadows with its reconstructed sod Viking huts, nor the majestic Long Range Mountains; or have one of the most important botanical sites in the Province at the ecological reserve of Burnt Cape which are the earliest, or the inspiring legacy left behind by the heroic missionary, Sir Wilfred Grenfell. Indeed, all these features combine to make our district dynamic and help attract thousands of visitors each year to our northern shores, where icebergs, whales and moose concentrate like no other place on earth. For me, The Straits & White Bay North is simply the best for many personal reasons. To begin with, my roots are there. I was born there. I live there. I have family and friends there. I work there. I serve as a volunteer in many areas. I am a part of the community and they are a part of me.

This community of communities, from Englee to St. Anthony to Anchor Point to Cook's Harbour and L'Anse aux Meadows has now bestowed upon me a privilege to help shape their lives and their future. I do so with pleasure and reverence, both as their friend, as well as their Member of the House of Assembly. In doing so, I have entered into a solemn agreement, a pact if you will, to ensure that I will build a road for them.

This is no ordinary road, Mr. Speaker. It is a road that should take them further than where they are now; economically, socially, culturally, psychologically and emotionally. This is a road that ensures their lives, their voice and their concerns are just as much a centrepiece of government's agenda and action plan as any other area of this Province. They no longer want to be underserved. This is the message that they have desperately been trying to convey for the better part of this decade.

In 2001, they were reassured that they would not be the forgotten people; whether intentionally or not, they have been let down since that infamous promise. Yes, Mr. Speaker, like a vase, trust, that most important value of all, has been broken in The Straits & White Bay North. Part of my work here as an MHA is to restore that trust so that the people in the district I represent can again feel empowered, engaged, and respected. Quite simply, the people of The Straits & White Bay North want to feel encircled into the provincial community. They want to feel valued, and they want to feel justice and fairness.

These are simple human needs, but ones that if attended to, could be powerfully healing and forward moving in our overall provincial progress. You see, Mr. Speaker, our district is a part of this great Province that is particularly concerned about our future, our communities, about population changes, the loss of our youth, families broken down due to lack of job opportunities, the loss of a sustainable tax base, the shrinking of volunteers, the downgrading of our precious health care, the watering down of our educational system, the limitation of broadband services, and being trapped in poverty and apathy. Economic and social crisis lead to other hardships, including depression, alcohol and drug dependency, and other human ills, which further distress our communities.

As I indicated during my campaign, we are a district that is particularly challenged, in that all of our communities have populations of less than 5,000 people. Perhaps more than any region in the country, and most certainly in the Province, we are fighting the perfect storm that is challenging our very core, our viability and our sustainability. The issues facing The Straits & White Bay North are not unique, yet they are matters left unaddressed for many years by this Administration.

In particular, the fisheries is critical to the economic, social, and cultural elements of our people and their lives. Like many regions around our Province, The Straits & White Bay North arose from the fishery and it has been a way of life for hundreds of years. While the fishery sustained us for centuries, the people I represent were the hardest hit by the devastating cod moratorium of the early 1990s. The people I represent lost their livelihood, their stability, many family members through outmigration, and a part of their spirit.

To be certain, the cod moratorium was a black time, but it is a watershed moment that has had strong repercussions well into our future. Nearly twenty years later, the news headlines sadly still report crises after crises in our fishery, as was evident in our lobster and crab fishery sector this year, with low prices and scarcity of resource. Why is this so? I believe there is a simple reason: it is evident that there is a lack of genuine and heartfelt commitment to the fishery, both at the federal level as well as the provincial level. There are many who would like to believe that the fishery is a part of our past and that we should focus primarily on non-renewable resources. I would suggest that would be short-sighted and that would be blinded by the here and now.

Despite the rhetoric that would have us believe otherwise, our fishery has, without a doubt, been badly neglected. The bold fiscal investments and the management arrangements needed to correct the outstanding challenges are not there. What is there is an offer that is wholly inadequate to address the real issues surrounding this resource.

As a priority, the recovery of our cod must become more of a national and a provincial passion. It is not acceptable to merely wait and see. Achievement is possible only when there is action. We must be vigilant, day in and day out, to ensure that our solutions to a sustainable fishery include effective NAFO reforms, a joint management framework between the federal-provincial governments, the necessary scientific research, the right dialogue, and the necessary innovation and resources, particularly into the secondary processing side of this industry. For example, trucking unprocessed fish off the Great Northern Peninsula is a crime to our coast.

Mr. Speaker, when a Province's unemployment rate is 17 per cent and the national average is 8.6 per cent, it tells the tale that something is not working here in this Province. When a Province still has the highest rate of unemployment in Canada, at levels we were thirty years ago, someone is paying the price. I would suggest among others that fish plant workers, fish harvesters and their families in their communities in my district are bearing the brunt of this failure. We have lost valuable time in progressive fishery management and it is time to play catch-up, kind of fast.

Health care, clearly, is another vital area of concern to rural citizens as well, Mr. Speaker. Maintaining the integrity of rural health care is a vital piece of the rural revival puzzle. For a majority of people on the Northern Peninsula, to access health care services, more often than not, means travelling to great distances, incurring excessive costs in time, and yes, at times taking risk as we travel over long distances and through harsh weather conditions. It also means that we are often short of the resources, staffing and professionals that are all essential to a wholesome health care system.

For example, life-saving dialysis services and equipment are not fully available to residents in our district. A small investment would so improve the lives of many living in our region.

Our district would also benefit from an enhancement of the medical travel assistance program, so we do not have to endure financial hardship to obtain the medical attention and specialized care, which is often required, particularly as our population ages. Accountability from our government is badly needed so that smarter leadership in health care is provided. Not to mention, we need short-term and long-term investments. Our health care system is long overdue for a systematic review and priority attention needs to be focussed on health care in all rural regions, but especially in The Straits & White Bay North area.

Education is yet another cause of concern by parents, teachers, and other leaders in all our communities. A K-12 education should be a basic right for every student in this Province. Having to travel up to forty kilometres on a school bus to receive an education, as the people of St. Lunaire-Griquet are asked to do, in our inhospitable climate, should not be forced on any human being, let alone our precious children.

Our mature students are also underserved in The Straits & White Bay North, Mr. Speaker. What is the purpose of having any post-secondary institution if the living accommodations for students are lacking or inadequate? Education is but a tool of social justice, and a driver of economic development, and a high quality system needs to be available to all citizens, whether they live in St. John's or St. Lunaire.

Our forestry industry on the Great Northern Peninsula has suffered through a number of rough years. While there has been some investment into this industry this year, Mr. Speaker, forest harvesters are still not on a solid footing. They still worry every day whether the investment is sound, and whether their industry has any long-term sustainability.

Our issues are not just service or industry related, Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about people, especially those on fixed incomes, our seniors, those on unemployment benefits and families on social security or earning low wages. Day in, day out, our citizens and our families grapple with hikes in food, heat, accommodations, prescription drugs, transportation, and other commodities that lessen the well-being of their lives. If we can address the ordinary and the not so ordinary properly, we can once again put the great back into the Great Northern Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line, the crux of the matter is that there is, in this Province, a thorn that divides us as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. The unaddressed issues I have raised previously highlight this most contentious issue. It is referred to by many as the urban and rural divide.

The urban and rural partition that exists in this Province is not a figment of anyone's imagination. It is there as certain as the stars and the heavens. Like any problem, it needs to first be acknowledged. A problem realized, they say, is a problem half solved. Once the issue of rural disparity is openly acknowledged, it needs to be addressed. Not just with meaningless dialogue reports and strategic plans.

Government must commit themselves to an authentic rural contract. It is a moral responsibility of all elected officials. It is not good enough anymore to stand and spout the words: You will not be forgotten. It is not good enough to say that a rural lens is being applied in all government decisions, misleading us to think our concerns count. It is not good enough to touch down in a district only during an election or a by-election. It is not good enough to have one have region, while other regions are still mired as have-nots.

This rural contract will ensure that no region or community shall be left behind. They want to know government have their backs covered. Rural Newfoundland and Labrador has made it loud and clear; they want to be on team Newfoundland Labrador. We are not a cookie cutter district, Mr. Speaker. We are unique and special, and we have unique and special needs, and our solutions need to be user-friendly to us.

The Straits & White Bay North, however, is typical of mainstream rural Newfoundland and Labrador, which simply have not enjoyed many of the benefits of progress in this last decade. We want to be balanced partners in this provincial community, together with our urban partners, which mean we need input into our path.

Joseph Joubert, a French essayist, once wrote that it is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it. The threatened health care cuts that were about to be inflicted on the people in Flower's Cove and Lewisporte are instructive of how not to grow a strong rural Newfoundland and Labrador and how not to balance the partnership scale. It is instructive instead of how to tear the guts out of people and a region. Mr. Speaker, no one wants to be dictated to. It is callous. It is disrespectful. It is wrong. People, for the most part, are in better positions to make decisions for themselves and their families than any politician or bureaucrat. That is the message that I represent today.

The other part of the message, sent by the good people of The Straits & White Bay North, is that we need, not only to affirm, but also to action a strong rural inclusion agenda. A rural inclusion agenda will ensure we make a tangible difference to rural Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who face barriers to everyday life simply because we have listened to people's issues. After campaigning door to door, I now call these issues the open door issues. These are the issues you hear when you open your door, that is open your ears and allow people to air their heart and soul, their worries and concerns, their fears and their frustrations.

These issues need to lead the way to a people responsive government. These are the issues that not only require strong and innovative leadership to address, but it grows strong and innovative leaders. You see, Mr. Speaker, many people are mistaken about leadership. They think it is about being served. In fact, it is opposite; a real leader seeks to serve. They create leaders and not followers. The ultimate test of leadership is whether you can effectively make yourself irrelevant by empowering those around you. The political process we are involved in should not be a racket; instead, it should be an opportunity to ramp up for people.

Mr. Speaker, in the environmental movement, there are three words that are used to convey the message of protecting our environment. We are all familiar with them, they are: reuse, recycle, and reduce. What rural Newfoundlanders and Labradorians need to believe, Mr. Speaker, are three words that will protect their concerns. First, they need to know they are respected. Secondly, they need to know they will be represented. Thirdly, they need to have hope that their region will be revived. All of this takes another R word. Our citizens need to know they have a real and respectful relationship with government, not a ‘reliatory' relationship. To do otherwise is to commit to the other R word that should not be a part of any government's back or front door agenda, and that would be resettlement.

Many in this Province have always dreamed of a fixed link across the beautiful Straits of Belle Isle to connect the Island and Labrador. What a wondrous link indeed that would be, and I am confident one day it will be actualized.

In the meantime, I propose, Mr. Speaker, that a more significant and meaningful fixed link would be the bridge that links us in equality as regions, but more importantly, as people. We really are all in this together and we have to stay together and work together for we cannot build a healthy economy without considering the interdependence of our urban and rural areas. All regions should just not be players, but winners in this game of prosperity.

Never before has a government in this Province enjoyed so much wealth to make this happen and to make a difference in people's lives. We must understand that it is not enough to have a vision, mission or strategy, we must plan and implement. We must quieten our voices of what we think is the right way and listen to the voice of those who live in rural regions and communities who need practical solutions and real action.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the privilege of addressing the House today. I look forward to the years ahead as we work together for the people who have put their trust and faith in us. Indeed, I dedicate this speech to the courageous people of The Straits & White Bay North. Often, it is not easy to stand up to those in authority or to let someone know that they are getting it all wrong, but those I represent did just that.

During this by-election, the people I represent became rural warriors, not just for themselves but for all regions and people that are rurally based. While my principle responsibility is to champion rural renewal for The Straits & White Bay North, I am also committed to our collective path as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I pledge to vigorously oppose policies which will hinder rural growth, and advance policies designed to rebuild our place within this provincial community, not just our living standards but our self-esteem as a people. For unless some significant changes take place, we will see the emergence of a permanent underclass in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, or just as devastating, ghost communities and empty shores. What a terrible legacy that would be, Mr. Speaker.

As I conclude my maiden speech, I call upon this entire hon. House to leave a legacy of finally closing the gap between our rural and urban residents and regions. Only then will I be confident that our children and grand-children will want to remain in Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to help build a better road for all of us to journey on. Let us build it together, the most important fixed link together, where rural and urban come together and share its benefits as one community.

Again, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak for a few minutes this afternoon in the House of Assembly to speak in Address in Reply. As we know, every year the Lieutenant-Governor gives a Speech from the Throne, and the Speech's purpose is to outline the government's main objectives for the upcoming year. In response to the Speech from the Throne, called Address in Reply, it is usually wide latitude of topics can be permitted. So I am going to use this time to speak of some events and some investments, particularly in my district in recent times.

Before I get to that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my congratulations to the two newly elected members of the House of Assembly, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North and also the Member for Terra Nova, who will be sworn in within a short period of time and will be taking his seat in the House. I would like to wish these gentlemen the best of luck and the best of courage, and I guess buckets of wisdom as you take on your duties in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I have been thinking a lot in the last few days about a group of people in our district, one group that comes to mind is the volunteers. This past summer I had the privilege of accompanying the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs on a couple of his consultation sessions when basically he was out in different areas of the Province consulting with different volunteer groups and getting their input on the issues that face these people. Whether an event is hosted by a town council or a local service district or a fire department, a Lions Club, whatever, there is a common element that we seem to see in all of these events. There is a stabilizing force that is there, a stabilizing influence, and, of course, that is the volunteer. The safety of our citizens depends on the tremendous contribution and commitment that is made by men and women in the respective fire departments. The efficient operation of our towns depends on volunteer service of its citizens, and the care of our people is made a whole lighter because of the huge contribution that is made by volunteers out in our districts.

When I think of volunteers, I think of people like Lloyd Head of Comfort Cove. This past weekend I had the privilege of attending an annual firemen's Christmas dinner down in the Town of Comfort Cove and I had the privilege of addressing the group, and I also had the privilege of presenting Mr. Head with his thirty-five year service pin. It was quite an honour to think that a gentleman gave thirty-five years of service to his community. Also, to Mr. Byron White who was also there, and to present him with a twenty-five year service pin.

Mr. Speaker, I got to thinking about the type of work that our firefighters do. Of course, we all know that people who join fire departments, well they want to fight fires. That is usually one of the first things that they want to do and one of the prime reasons, but that is only a small part of what these people do out in our districts. For example, if we go to a wedding or a funeral or a graduation, lots of times there is big crowds congregated in small spaces and you need traffic control. Usually, the people that you see out there doing that in these places are volunteer firefighters.

Just last summer I was driving across the highway, and just before I got to Gambo there was a big backup of traffic, and as we edged up closer to where the interruption was we saw that they had encountered a flood in the town, and there was a lot of damage that was done to the town. You see the kind of vehicles that you expect to see, you see police vehicles and you see emergency vehicles but you also see in uniform, with firefighter's hats on, you see a lot of men and women out and they are dragging hoses and they are working pumps and they are doing all these things that we expect our volunteer firefighters to do. They are involved in rescue, whether it is water, ice rescue. Lots of times you come up on an accident on the highway, and again you see your usual emergency vehicles there but lots of times you will see a volunteer firefighter, or two or three or a dozen, depending on what is needed, and they are on the scene. They are there and they are providing a service for all of us.

So, I think of those people, and I think of Pearce Burt in Baytona. Last year I had the privilege of giving him a thirty-one year service pin. When I think of volunteers I think of people like Bonnie Snow in Lewisporte, who has been leading a team called the Cancer Warriors for the last number of years, raising funds for cancer research in our district and has raised somewhere up to $50,000; has led a team that has raised close to $50,000 in the last few years. When I think of volunteers, I think of Ross Abbott down in Loon Bay. When they were awarded a community enhancement project last year to build a little floating dock in their community, Ross was the kind of guy that led the effort. He was there when the people were working, and he was volunteering his time. He was using his boat and he was using his quad. He was doing things, along with other people there in the community, to see that that project got done.

So I certainly want to thank volunteers for the fine efforts that they did. I want to thank the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Minister Responsible for the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector for the tremendous work that he has done in recognizing and in assisting these people.

Of course, when we think of volunteers, Mr. Speaker, again, none work any harder than those that lead in our communities. The municipal leaders; these people are on the front lines, these people get the daily feedback, these people are in the trenches. They do the work with the community and they also come and bring their issues and problems to us. We assist where ever we can.

In recent municipal elections, we did have some turnover in some of the municipal leadership in the towns throughout my district. I would like to recognize some of those. I would like to recognize all of them but, of course, to make mention of a few. In Baytona, we have a new mayor and I want to congratulate Rex Quinlan as he has replaced Jerden Bennett. Jordan was the mayor of Baytona for a number of years and I certainly thank him for his service.

In Comfort Cove, we have a new mayor: Mayor Stanley Reid and he is replacing a mayor that was there for quite a period of time, Junior Eveleigh. I want to thank Junior for his years of service. I have certainly enjoyed working with him and wish Mayor Reid all the best in his new duties.

In Embree, we also have a new mayor: Mayor Don Bennett has taken up the post and he is replacing outgoing Mayor Wallace Fifield. Again, I certainly thank Wallace for his years of service and for the tremendous job that he has done.

In Lewisporte, we also have a new mayor and the mayor is Brian Peckford. Not the one that was former Premier, but Mayor Brian Peckford who has taken over from Mayor Bill Hooper. Again, I want to thank Bill because we had a great working relationship. We worked together to get a number of initiatives advanced in the town and to wish Brian all the best as he takes up that role.

In Norris Arm, we have a new mayor, Chris Manuel. I want to extend congratulations to Chris and to also offer thanks to outgoing Mayor Fred Budgell.

Mr. Speaker, a lot has happened in the past year. Last year, this time, none of us were talking about something called H1N1, for example. There may have been a little big of talk somewhere about something called the swine flu, which eventually got turned to a name of H1N1, but it was more off in the distance. Since last year, of course, we have battled and we are continuing to battle with the H1N1 pandemic.

I certainly want to offer my congratulations, my personal thanks, my admiration to the Minister of Health for the way in which he has led us through this potential crisis that we had our hands. I think the way he has handled this file up to and including now has been remarkable, and I certainly want to thank him for the job he has done in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, it was around about this time last year that the price of oil dipped down below $40 a barrel, and it was falling from a previous high in months before that where it hit almost $150 a barrel. As the global uncertainty came, the global uncertainty that came with the falling commodity prices, it resulted in an international global recession.

While our economy here in Newfoundland and Labrador, we have not been shielded from the effects of a shrinking global economy, but we have been positioned to address the economic downturn in a productive and in an aggressive manner. To combat the direct effects of the recession, our government took aggressive action in February of this year. One of the ways that we took aggressive action is we came on with a very, very adventuresome, detailed stimulus package - $800 million worth of stimulus money that will spent in this fiscal year.

Some of the money that we allocated in that regard, in the area of transportation, for repairs and maintenance in infrastructure - over $300 million, around $310 million we allocated at that time.

In the area of education, as we have heard our education minister talk about the tremendous investment in our schools and our facilities - somewhere around $155 million, $160 million dollars we allocated in that regard.

For the upkeep of our health care facilities, including equipment and maintenance, we allocated $163 million. In municipal infrastructure - $103 million. In Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, about $25 million. In the justice department, in infrastructure, about $18 million.

This has been a significant investment by our government and it is an investment that has served to help us ride out this recession in a way that is better than the way most of the country, and indeed, most of the world has been able to ride this recession.

I do believe that is a direct result of the foresight, the vision and the leadership that our Premier has provided in a lot of these files. I certainly appreciate that as one person living in this great Province.

In my district, Mr. Speaker, since my election in October of 2007 we have had many, many investments in the district, and I have a whole list of them here. I will not go through all of the investments, but I will highlight a few things.

We have improved roads throughout the district. We had some roadwork done in Norris Arm North, down around Brown's Arm, we had some paving in Lewisporte and Campbellton, Gander Bay Road has gotten some work, the Town of Horwood, Stoneville, Port Albert. There have been a number of communities that have benefited from that. Of course, we still have some work to do, I say, Mr. Speaker, and I say to the people in my district. There is still some work.

I have talked about over in Norris Arm North, for example, we want to get that road finished and upgraded. The road connecting the Gander Bay Road out to Horwood is certainly a priority for me to see that gets done. The continuation of Gander Bay Road, I would like to see that get done. That is three main priorities, I hope we can get that addressed, and I feel positive we will throughout the remainder of this term of office.

We have had some investments in our local marina in the last while. We have a new stadium in Lewisporte at a cost of about $5 million. Water and sewer infrastructure, we have spent about $5 million in municipal capital works there in the last couple of years in terms of water and sewer projects in the Town of Comfort Cove and the Town of Stoneville. We have seen a new water filtration system out in Norris Arm. Throughout the district, again, we see more and more investment.

Our government has committed in the area of health care in the district. Site work is now underway. I went up and visited the site this past weekend. Site work is underway for the construction of a new long-term care home in Lewisporte and that, of course, is a long-term care home that will serve the needs of the entire area. This new facility, I think, will have about sixty-one beds, a full kitchen, emergency after-hours clinic and also a lab and X-ray clinic. We are expecting that tenders will be called soon for the construction of the whole facility. It will be a brand new facility, with a total cost of around the $30 million mark.

In Central Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, we, of course, are one of the sites where waste management - the waste management site near Norris Arm is seeing a tremendous investment to have that infrastructure ready as we move into a newer and a better and a greener way to deal with our household and also with our commercial waste. The former Minister of Municipal Affairs was out in the district one time last year – no, I guess it is actually the current minister but she is, right now, on sick leave. She made a statement when she was at a gathering in Norris Arm last year, and she said: I am pleased to say that Central continues to be an excellent example of how the strategies should be progressing. She said: You have moved the strategy ahead quickly and effectively, and because of that the region is on track to be able to offer full waste management services in 2012. There is a lot of activity around that site. I have seen the plans and I believe that it is going to result in some employment in our area and it is also going to result in a better way for us to be more environmentally friendly, to be more responsible with the way we dispose of our waste. So, this is just to name a few, Mr. Speaker, a few of the investments in my district, and there are quite a few that has happened in the last couple of years.

I would also think that in terms of the provincial investments that have happened, that have impacted all of our districts, I think of the Newfoundland and Labrador Home Repair Program. I think of home heating rebates, and these things, especially the Home Heating Rebate, we see people coming into the office to pick up their application for the Home Heating Rebate and people ask questions about it. I am pleased to see that our government has poured money into that in the last few years and I am anticipating that the Minister of Finance will probably tell us that he will be doing something again this fiscal year about the Home Heating Rebate. We will wait and see on that; that is his announcement. It is an important program and something that people in all of our districts have taken advantage of.

The funding for replacement of oil storage tanks was also something - it is a provincial program but it helped all our districts. Parental benefits, additional drug coverage. When I think of the tuition freeze at Memorial again this year and at our post-secondary institutions, this has helped all of us as parents who have children attending post-secondary institutions, and the interest freeze on student loans. While they are provincial programs, again they have helped everybody in all of our districts, people like myself, people in all of the communities throughout our districts.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. VERGE: Can I just have a minute to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member by leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member by leave.

MR. VERGE: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to speak again in Address in Reply. I am very thankful for the investments that our government has made provincially that have resulted in direct impact to the people throughout my district. I am thankful for the investments that government has made directly in my district that has resulted in tremendous improvements in infrastructure and in transportation and in health care services and delivery, and I certainly believe we are on the right track and doing great things.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure today to be able to stand in the House and make some comments in response to the Speech from the Throne delivered in this House last year in March, I believe, Mr. Speaker. Before I do, I want to congratulate the two most recently elected members to the House of Assembly, to the Member for The Straits & White Bay North and to my colleague the Member for Terra Nova. Congratulations on the recent by-election.

I have some appreciation for those who are elected to this Assembly through a by-election process because I myself was elected in a by-election in April of 2000, some almost ten years ago. I have had the real fortune, good fortune of having been re-elected on two different occasions, in 2003 and in 2007, to come back to this House to represent the people of Trinity North. I say to the two most recently elected members, it is indeed an honour to be a part of this House of Assembly and to represent the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. So I congratulate each and every one of you.

To the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, it was a great delivery of a speech. I cannot say that I agree with the content, but it was a great delivery. I will spare him, Mr. Speaker. Ordinarily, when you stand in the House after you follow the speaker, if you disagree with something that may been said you sometimes challenge it, but given the fact that it is his maiden speech we will leave it untouched for now. Sometime over the course of debate in this House in future months, no doubt, he will learn to eat the words he just delivered because members on this side will be very happily and appropriately prepared to stand and to contradict and to challenge some of the comments made.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into my own comments with respect to the Speech from the Throne, I want to reflect on yesterday. One of the things about this House of Assembly, there is nothing that you can say in this House that does not get recorded in Hansard. Hansard is one of those places, Mr. Speaker, that you can go and find on the public record what people said, how they said it, and in what context they may have made their comments.

I want to refer to Hansard from yesterday, when the Opposition House Leader, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, stood in this House and he, as he frequently does, kind of calmly and gently tries to reflect and, as he commonly refers to, speak to the average people of Newfoundland and Labrador and tried to suggest, Mr. Speaker, in a very gentle way that this government somehow or other had not been appropriately serving the people of this Province. He was reflecting on some of the recent by-elections as being testimony to the fact that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have not, in fact, embraced this government's record and do not agree with the things that we are doing.

I was really astonished, Mr. Speaker, I was astonished, and I just want to read something from Hansard. The Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, a former Cabinet Minister in a former Administration, got up in this House yesterday and admitted, and it is recorded in Hansard: he had no knowledge of the forest industry; he had no knowledge of the shipbuilding industry in this Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a former minister of the Crown, a former minister in a former Liberal Administration that we have constantly referred to in this House on any number of occasions in the last six years of the kind of shape that they left this Province in. There is no wonder, Mr. Speaker. If you look at the forest industry and the shipbuilding industry in this Province, and have a former minister stand and acknowledge: I know nothing about it; I knew nothing about it. By-elections in the District of Terra Nova opened his eyes to what was going on in the forest industry.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that speaks volumes. That speaks volumes for what we, as a government, inherited in 2003 when Cabinet ministers did not have an understanding or an appreciation for two significant industries, I say, Mr. Speaker. So he has the audacity to stand in this House and criticize some things that our government would have done.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that as he was speaking he was echoing the comments made by his colleague as she sat next to him, the Leader of the Official Opposition, when, in fact, he is suggesting, in Hansard, that the Leader of the Opposition mentioned that many people on this side of the House felt very vulnerable, Mr Speaker. Vulnerability - when you speak about being vulnerable, I remind members of this House and the member opposite particularly, that if I were the leader of a party who was only at 10 per cent in the polls, I, myself, might feel extremely vulnerable. What amazes me, Mr. Speaker, what truly amazes me - because I believe that the Leader of the Opposition is doing a half decent job. She has held herself well in this House and she has spoken eloquently in public on many occasions, and what is really surprising me is that her numbers in polls, since 2007, have not yet been able to surpass the former defeated Leader of the Opposition. Her predecessor, Mr. Reid, had reached some 12 per cent at one point in the polls and she has never been able to reach that level. That surprises me, I say, Mr. Speaker. I am truly surprised because I would have thought that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador would recognize that the current Leader of the Opposition is probably doing a much better job than the former Leader of the Opposition, but clearly, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador disagree with me because they do not think that she is doing such a great job.

When I listened to the member opposite yesterday talk about the recent by-elections and how there has been a loss of voter support - and not to burst the bubble of the Member for The Straits & White Bay North and that great speech he just gave, but I want to remind him because Hansard records history that takes place in this House, and Hansard also records who sits in this House. I remind the members of the House, and the Member for The Straits & White Bay North particularly, that in a by-election in Humber Valley in February of 2007, the people of that district - there was a by-election, our Party was in power at that time and there was a by-election. At that time the people of that district said: We are going to elect a Liberal member to the House of Assembly; we are going to put someone in Opposition.

Sure enough, Humber Valley elected someone in Opposition in February of 2007. You know, in October of 2007 we had a general election and look what happened. Look what happened, the people of Humber Valley recognized –

AN HON. MEMBER: Wise move.

MR. WISEMAN: Exactly, the people of Humber Valley recognized –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: They recognized that this is a whole new ball game now, this is not a by-election, this is a general election. Who do we want to represent us in the House of Assembly? Who was the most appropriate person to have as the leader of the Province? Who was the most appropriate person to be the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador? Who do we want representing us? The people of Humber Valley at that time said: No, no, we do not want the person we elected in Opposition several months ago; we want a new person. We want someone who is going to be a part of the Premier Williams' team and so they elected my colleague, the current Chair of Committees, who we saw in action today, Mr. Speaker, doing an admirable job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I say to the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, we are eighteen, nineteen months away from a general election; enjoy what you now experience, it is a wonderful opportunity. Again, the people of The Straits & White Bay North will have another opportunity in a very short period of time, as did the people in Humber Valley, to re-evaluate whether or not they want to have someone from the Liberal Party representing them. They will have an opportunity at that time to determine who they want as the Premier for the period of 2011 to 2015. Will they want the current Premier who is committed to be there, leading the party, leading government into the election in 2011 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: - or will they choose to have the current Leader of the Opposition? Will they currently want to have the Leader of the Opposition?

In fact, I say, Mr. Speaker, the word: vulnerability, used in this House yesterday, if I were the Leader of the Opposition today and I was looking at vulnerability and thinking about the word: vulnerability, I would be a little bit concerned about some of the comments at least attributed to the most recently elected Member for The Straits & White Bay North when he is noted to have said and questioned, I think, the leadership of his party.

A recently elected, recently minted MHA for The Straits & White Bay North, elected with great support from the current leader of that party. She was on the Northern Peninsula trouncing around, knocking on doors, campaigning vigorously for him. Now he finds himself questioning whether or not, in fact, 8 per cent or 10 per cent is high enough in the polls, whether or not she is an appropriate leader for that party I say, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when I listened yesterday to the Opposition House Leader talk about the fortunes of our party, talks about the misfortunes, as he described them, of our party, questioning whether or not the people of this Province actually endorse what we do, let me provide to him, Mr. Speaker, some statistics, because he said yesterday: Facts do not lie. Here is some of the facts, Mr. Speaker.

In a most recent poll - I will find it here now in a second, Mr. Speaker. Most recent poll said that - they are all alike, aren't they? I have some data here going back to 2006, I can pick any time, any time since 2006 - in fact I do not have it before me, but my memory serves me that prior to 2006, as a matter of fact since we have been elected in 2003 any time that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have been asked about their level of satisfaction with our government it has always been eighty-seven, seventy-eight, ninety, eighty-four, eighty-two, eighty-three, consistently, Mr. Speaker, consistently. When someone says who do they want to be - when the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have been asked: Who do you want to be the Premier of the Province? Who do you prefer to have as the Premier, the current Premier or one of the leaders of the opposing parties? Do you know what they said? In 80-odd per cent of the time, every single time since 2003, they have said the current Premier, Premier Williams is the person that they want as the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Do know why? Because we are providing great governance to the people of this Province. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, we get measured as politicians, as political parties we are measured continuously by the people we represent.

When we campaigned as a party in 2003, let me read, Mr. Speaker - I know we are not allowed to use props in this House, but this is public material. I want to read what came out of the – in 2003, we had a blueprint for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and we presented it to the people and here is what the current Premier said to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador at that time. That we will make a significant achievement in our first mandate and after eight years we will have seen a rejuvenated and re-energized province posed to lead the country. I say, Mr. Speaker, six years later, not eight years later, but six years later, what do we have in Newfoundland and Labrador? We have a rejuvenated Province.

We not only have a Province that is on the verge of leading the country, but we are in fact leading the country on many fronts, Mr. Speaker. When I look at a recent presentation made by Dr. Locke at Memorial University, who has been cited in this House many times and used by both parties in this House of Assembly and used by companies internationally to do some work for them. Here is what he was presenting, Mr. Speaker, when I say leading the country: When you look at capital investment of all the provinces in Canada, who is number one? Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: When you look at who is leading the country in retail sales, who is number one? Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: When you look at labour income, the increase in income of those people who are working in Newfoundland and Labrador, who is number one? Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Now, Mr. Speaker, we start to slip a little bit here now. We start to slip a little bit. When you look at urban housing starts, who is number two? Newfoundland and Labrador. We are not number one, but we are number two.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: When you look at the number – and here is the interesting thing. We heard the member opposite talk about EI and the number of people unemployed and the high unemployment rate, but do you know something, Mr. Speaker? Here is a measurement, if you look at the number of new people filing EI claims as a measure of how prosperous we are, if you look at places like Alberta, they have more people filing claims for EI for the first time than we do today. Do you know what? We are at number two. There is only one other province better than us in having new claims being filed, because Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are working today versus what they were ten years ago, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: There were more people working five years ago than they are now. There are fewer people filing for EI today than when that crowd opposite was in government, Mr. Speaker. So when I look at that –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WISEMAN: The Atlantic Report talks about some of the economic outlook for 2010. Let me just read this, Mr. Speaker: Newfoundland and Labrador is expected to lead growth in Atlantic region next year with a gain of 3 per cent – leading the Atlantic region in growth next year, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I will just read another -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WISEMAN: Let me just read this: Consumer confidence, Mr. Speaker. A survey talks about economic activity, talks about retail sales. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have a higher consumer confidence than any other jurisdiction in this country, Mr. Speaker. Why? Why is it that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - why is it that consumers in Newfoundland and Labrador have more confidence in their Province than consumers anywhere else in this country? Because Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are bright, intelligent people, Mr. Speaker, and they know what is happening in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: They know, Mr. Speaker, that Newfoundland and Labrador is leading the country economically. They know that Newfoundland and Labrador is not just poised to lead the country but, in fact, we are leading the country.

Yesterday I listened to my colleague, the Minister of Education, talk about all of the wonderful things we have done in education, talk about the amount of investments we have made in reduction of all the school fees and taxes that have (inaudible). I saw my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment talk about the massive investments we have made in poverty reduction, Mr. Speaker. We have had the tuition fees – in fact, we are the first Province in the entire country to eliminate the interest on the provincial share of our student loans, Mr. Speaker; the first Province in the entire country. We have the lowest tuition in the entire country for our College of the North Atlantic and our Memorial University, our Grenfell College. These are all facts, Mr. Speaker.

As the Member for Burgeo & La Poile said yesterday, facts speak for themselves. Anything that I have cited here today is factual, Mr. Speaker. It is published information, it is validated information. It is as a result of surveyed results.

I listened to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi talk about the investments we should be making in poverty, the investments we should be making in reducing income tax, Mr. Speaker. If you look at what the leading agencies in this country who deal with poverty each and every day, what are they saying about our Poverty Reduction Strategy? They are saying that everywhere else in this country should be looking to Newfoundland and Labrador to model themselves after what we are doing with poverty reduction, Mr. Speaker. I think that speaks volumes for who we are as a people. When she stands in this House and talks about we should be taking advantage of our prosperity today to invest in our future, that is exactly what we are doing, and our future is in people, Mr. Speaker. Our future is in people. That is why we are investing money in poverty reduction, that is why we are investing money in education, that is why we are investing money in infrastructure, that is why we are investing money in schools, in education, aquaculture. We are investing in our youth retention strategy, all with a view to the future. We are, in fact, making strategic investments, Mr. Speaker, $800 million this year in infrastructure.

In fact, I understand from my colleague, the Minister of Government Services, Responsible for the Government Purchasing Agency, that we have more public tenders in play a day in this year, in 2009, than we have ever had in play in our entire history as a Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Now, Mr. Speaker, why do we have that many public tenders in play? Because of the massive investment we are making. Mr. Speaker, that is why that statistic that I quoted earlier, that survey, is able to say that we have more capital investment in Newfoundland and Labrador than does any other province in Canada. That speaks volumes, Mr. Speaker, of who we are as a government, where our priorities are, what it is we are focused on. We recognize, Mr. Speaker, that down the road we may not have oil. Down the road we may not have the same kind of revenue stream that we have today from non-renewable resources, and that is why it is important that we make strategic investments in infrastructure. That is why we need to get our debt under control.

When we came to government, my colleague, the Minister of Finance when he stood in this House for his first Budget Speech said that Newfoundland and Labrador was in dismal shape when we, in fact, took over. We were in a state of disarray. When he stands in this House in March of 2010 to deliver his next Budget Speech he will be able to provide for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador an update after seven years, Mr. Speaker, by that time, after seven years he will be able to talk about a massive reduction in debt. He will be able to talk about a massive infusion of new infrastructure money, Mr. Speaker, and an investment in significant social infrastructure, not just buildings and bricks and mortar and roads, we will be able to talk about the kind of investment we have made in social infrastructure.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, as a government, as a Premier, we are providing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with tremendous leadership. I guess the question I pose to the Opposition today as they talk about their future, as they criticize this government, as they speculate about the implications of the most recent by-election, the question will come down in 2011, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will be asked: Who do you want to be the Premier of this Province for the next four years? Do they want Premier Williams, do they want Premier Marshall, do they want Premier - which person do they want? There are four people opposite. We have the Member for The Straits & White Bay North. We have the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile. We have the Member for Cartwright- L'Anse au Clair. Which one of those people will be the leadership candidate for the Liberal Party at that time or will it be someone who is not sitting in the House? People of Newfoundland and Labrador will be asked: Who do you want to be the Premier, the person who has the track record for the last six years, that has revitalized Newfoundland and Labrador, or someone opposite who can sit and be critical of everything that takes place and have no solutions? They will not have the face to run on their track record that ended in 2003, I say, Mr. Speaker.

Clearly, I stand with a great deal of pride as I respond to the Speech from the Throne because I am very proud of the accomplishments of this government. I am very proud of the commitment we have made to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. All of my colleagues, and others, will stand in 2011 and proudly ask for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to support us again for another four-year term, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to make these few comments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works that the House do now adjourn.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

This House now stands adjourned until 2:00 of the clock tomorrow, being Wednesday.

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