The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today, the Chair would like to welcome a special guest seated in the Speaker's Galley. This gentleman has championed the calls of both democracy and political reform. He is the founder of two political parties, both of which became the Official Opposition in the Canadian Parliament with him as the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. He is now the President of the Manning Centre for Building Democracy.

Ladies and gentleman, extend a welcome to the Honourable Preston Manning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker would also like to welcome some other special guests: The Mount Pearl Seniors Independence Group from the Districts of Mount Pearl North, Mount Pearl South, and Topsail. The group is accompanied by their co-ordinator Georgina Smith.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker also welcomes the following members' statements: the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North, the hon. the Member for the District of Kilbride, and the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to congratulate Mrs. Agnes Pike on recently receiving the Herbert D. Brett Lifetime Achievement Award for Community Economic Development.

Mr. Speaker, this award presented by the Newfoundland and Labrador Regional Economic Development Association (NLREDA) recognizes an individual whose work has made lasting contributions to the economic development of community and has demonstrated outstanding achievement by empowering people to foster economic growth.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Pike who sits on the Labrador Straits Development Board received this award for her thirty-five years of service at the community, regional and provincial level. Her efforts as an active board member of a variety of community, regional, provincial and international organizations have resulted in millions of dollars being secured for essential community economic development projects, training and infrastructure throughout the Labrador Straits and the Labrador region.

Mr. Speaker, while raising five children, managing a community fish plant, leading municipal council for thirty years, and establishing a successful private tourism business, Mrs. Pike has managed to be involved in over twenty-two community, regional, provincial and international committees, associations and working groups. The total impact of her involvement is impossible to determine. She has always recognized the clear linkages between community and economic development and social development. She has been a driving force in her area in establishing family resource centres, community youth network, literacy programs and health initiatives for the Labrador Straits, and as a board member of the International Grenfell Association for over fourteen years she has secured millions of dollars in funding for a wide variety of health, education, recreation and community development projects in Labrador and Northern Newfoundland.

I ask all my colleagues in the House of Assembly to join with me in recognizing Agnes Pike on winning the Herbert D. Brett award for her outstanding contributions to Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 the Mount Pearl Seniors Independence Group.

The group is well known in Mount Pearl. Simply put, they are a group of "Seniors helping Seniors". Originally established to advocate, plan and promote the independence, dignity, health and well being of vulnerable senior citizens in Mount Pearl, this group has become so much more.

They work closely and in partnership with the City of Mount Pearl and have a strategic plan in place to help guide them into the future. Their professionalism and commitment is outstanding. Operating with an active board of directors and a coordinator, the Mount Pearl Seniors Independence Group has set the bar high for other groups in our community. What is truly remarkable about this group of seniors is that their numbers continue to grow, year after year. With regular attendance of over 150 members at most events, everybody wants to be part of this group. Members participate in a weekly drop-in centre where there are card games and bingo and much more; the annual fall tea party, St. Paddy's Day lunch, a wonderful Christmas party. As you can see, there is no shortage of activities!

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the Mount Pearl Seniors Independence Group for their continued success and wish them all the best as they continue to do good work in Mount Pearl. These seniors are a shining testament to the generosity and great spirit that reigns in our community.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I stand in this hon. House today to pay tribute to and recognize a very fine young volunteer from my District of Kilbride.

I am referring to Michaela Silver, a nine-year-old Grade 4 student at Hazelwood Elementary School in St. John's.

Michaela was the poster child for the Canadian Parkinson's Society in 2009. She appeared in some Canada-wide magazines as well as on all Parkinson's Superwalk posters all over Canada.

Again in 2010, she was back locally representing the Parkinson Society of Newfoundland and Labrador doing local TV and radio appearances, encouraging people to get involved in the 2010 Superwalk, either as a walker or as a financial contributor.

Michaela personally raised $2,000 in 2009. This past year, after her participation in the local Superwalk on September 12, she raised over $2,500 for Parkinson's research; money that will stay in this Province.

Michaela has personally experienced the ravages of Parkinson's in her own family. Her grandmother died not too long ago after living with Parkinson's for several years.

I ask all members of this House to congratulate Michaela for a job well-done. We are all proud of her.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to recognize the hockey career and accomplishments of Gene Faulkner of Bishop's Falls.

Mr. Speaker, before being called up by the Senior Cataracts in 1974, Gene had already displayed his talent and ability while playing for the Grand Falls Junior Beothuks.

His first full season as a senior player came the following year in 1975, when he was nineteen. Gene won the league's scoring title with seventeen goals and twenty-two assists, playing on a team with his uncle Alex Faulkner.

Mr. Speaker, before Gene's hockey career ended in 1994, he would have two Herder Memorial Championships, six scoring titles, and played in the Allan Cup three times.

In 2001, he was inducted into the Newfoundland and Labrador Hockey Hall of Fame and on January 22 of this year during an on ice ceremony, the Grand Falls-Windsor Cataracts retired his number eight, prior to a regular season game between the Cataracts and the Corner Brook Royals.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members in this House to join me in congratulating Gene Faulkner on his successful career and contribution to senior hockey in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Violence Prevention Initiative's Annual Stakeholders' Conference was recently held in St. John's and attracted more than 180 people from all parts of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This year's focus was Sexual Orientation and Violence: Preventing Homophobia and Heterosexism.

Every day, Mr. Speaker, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, or LGBT individuals, as we sometimes reference, are subjected to acts of violence in schools, workplaces, and communities.

Many of the speakers at this year's conference were able to bring the issues to light and promote an open discussion of the types and severity of violence LGBT individuals face, and how we can use the supports that are out there to enhance our practices to prevent violence against this population.

Mr. Speaker, violence is rooted in inequality. For too long society has perpetuated inequality against many people. It was said many times over the course of the conference – it is time we all recognize that a person's sexuality is not a lifestyle; it is just a part of who they are. People are people, regardless of sexual orientation.

Celebrating the full diversity of our Province, including differing sexual orientations, is the simplest way we can start to build equal ground for all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. Continuing to educate everyone in our Province, at every age, is our first step to preventing violence against all vulnerable populations, including LGBT individuals.

As the action plan, Taking Action Against Violence, states, the purpose of the Violence Prevention Initiative is to increase government and community capacity to achieve, in the long term, a reduction in violence against women, children, youth, Aboriginal women and children, older persons, persons with disabilities and others who are vulnerable to violence because of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or economic status.

Mr. Speaker, our government remains fully committed to working to prevent violence against all of these populations in pursuit of a province where all residents can live a life free from violence.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have a role to play in ensuring that there is education and awareness around violence prevention in this Province. Governments over the last ten or twelve years in Newfoundland and Labrador have invested in such programs to ensure that those types of initiatives are happening all across Newfoundland and Labrador. Even with the greatest attempts, Mr. Speaker, we still have many gaps. I think it is important to recognize that.

I am pleased to see that there was a conference to raise the awareness of violence against people because of their sexuality. Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone in society should be treated in any different way simply because of any orientation, religion, ethnic background, or any of those things.

Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, I think we all as a society have to realize that bullying in our schools is a form of violence. Right now, our schools are not prepared to deal with many cases of the bullying that we see. I think of a number of examples. We have had three lockdowns in our schools in this Province over the last year. We have had a number of cases. Just off the top of my head, Mr. Speaker, I know of two cases in particular of a ten-year-old and a twelve-year-old in this Province who attempted suicide because of bullying in their schools. I am sure that there are many other cases out there.

So, I think right now we have to accept the fact that many of these issues are under-reported, but we also have to accept the fact that our school system is not prepared to deal with a lot of the bullying cases, which ultimately become violent cases in some instances in one or way or another. We need to ensure that they are more equipped to start dealing with it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. 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 her statement.

Naturally, I am really, really pleased that the VPI annual meeting this year, or their conference, did deal with the whole issue of violence against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people. We do know that the transgendered people, in particular, experience some of the highest rates of violence and discrimination in Canada.

I really, though, have to challenge the government. The minister has a job to do to undo what happened last spring. When we had a bill in this House dealing with changes to our Human Rights Code and our legislation, this government refused to add these people, to add the issue of gender identity to our own Human Rights Code. If we do not respect them enough to recognize specifically their human rights by putting them in our own code, then that adds to the image of people out there who think they have the right to act violently against them.

So, I really request this government to look at what it did last June when the Minister of Justice said, in response to my question, that it was an evolving right. Well, it is not an evolving right; it is a right that needs to be named. The violence, as perpetrated against them, shows how much that right needs to be named.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, in 2008 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians shared in a celebration as Danny Cleary, a member of the Detroit Red Wings, became the first person from this Province to have his name etched on the most coveted prize in hockey - the Stanley Cup.

On August 17 of last year, Mr. Cleary's accomplishments, both as an athlete and a role model, were recognized. An interpretative panel and commemorative print at the Danny Cleary Lookout in his hometown of Harbour Grace was unveiled.

Mr. Speaker, to further recognize this milestone in our sporting history, the provincial government, through the joint efforts of the Departments of Education and Tourism, Culture and Recreation, is providing each school in the Province with a framed limited edition reproduction of that print, titled: Believe in Yourself.

Designed by artist James Long, the print is not just a tribute to one of our local sports heroes, but also a reminder of what can be accomplished through hard work. It is our hope that it will inspire our students to set high expectations for themselves, and follow through in the pursuit of their own dreams and aspirations.

Mr. Speaker, this Province has entered into an era of unprecedented growth and prosperity. As a government, we recognize there is unlimited potential for further growth and prosperity. We also know that it is today's youth who will be the driving force behind our future success as a society, and as a people. That is why, Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent upon us to invest in our young people. They need opportunities to gain the knowledge, skills, and the confidence to succeed in their chosen endeavours - whatever they may be.

Mr. Speaker, we have asked schools to display the Danny Cleary print in a prominent place, so that it serve as an ever-present reminder to students to believe in themselves and in their own ability to achieve their goals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

Certainly, Danny Cleary we are all proud of as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, a tremendous athlete. He is an example, for sure, to our youth of what can be accomplished when you set your sights and goals and you work toward that goal. As a Province, he has elevated our Province's place in the NHL in particular, if you will. To be the first ever must be very special to him, and I congratulate him on that great accomplishment.

It is somewhat sad that he is playing for Detroit and not Montreal, but I guess that is all we can do about that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DEAN: I have members of the government on my side today, Mr. Speaker. That is a great thing.

It is great that this reproduction of the print, titled Believe in Yourself, will be in the schools. Just one note that I would say, not all of our young people, of course, follow sports and there are other areas as well that we would want to recognize young people, whether it is in the arts, academic accomplishments and so on, but today is a moment to congratulate Danny Cleary and it pleases me to be able to stand and do so.

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, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.

It is really important that we offer to our young people role models to look up to, and there is no doubt that Danny Cleary is one of those role models. Also, we know that Danny, himself, has a real interest in our young people. I remember one of his first stops when he came with the Stanley Cup was to go to the Janeway Hospital just after he arrived home in 2008. That was a wonderful thing. His achievements are great and we are proud of him, as we are of all of our athletes.

I would encourage the government to be further inspired, as I am sure they can be, by putting more resources into physical education and sports programs for our children because we do know the children in our schools are not getting enough physical education. They need more, and we need more resources for that, Mr. Speaker, and I encourage the government to do that.

I also encourage the government, if we are going to look at athletes who are role models maybe the government would look at having a series of pictures of great athletes from our Province and include other men, also women, and people with disabilities. I think of somebody like Joanne MacDonald who has brought back home to Newfoundland and Labrador sixty-one medals from games she has taken part in as a disabled athlete, and a host of national records. We have many to celebrate as role models and I encourage the government to broaden their vision.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, in the fall session of the House the Premier admitted that the cost of Muskrat Falls power will be at least 14.3 cents per kilowatt hour, that is before Newfoundland Power adds it charges. Mr. Speaker, Nalcor officials have confirmed for us that the price market energy will set the price that Muskrat energy will sell into the spot market - that is if they can get it there - will be anywhere from three to twelve cents per kilowatt hour.

My question today for the Premier is, effectively, the people in the Maritimes and New England will pay half of what residents in this Province will pay for the same power, now why would we want to give them their power at a much cheaper price than what we are going to provide it to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the power that the hon. member opposite is referring to is the excess power that will be available after the completion of the Muskrat Falls Project. Muskrat Falls, as we know, is the least cost sustainable energy source that we can develop for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we had a choice. The choice was we could spill the water and get no return on that spilled water, or we could capture that excess water and run it down the power lines into Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or New England and get a return on it. We decided to get a return for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They operate on the premise that it is the cheapest, most effective. We are operating on the premise, Mr. Speaker, that they are giving power to Nova Scotia and to Emera, a private corporation, for half the price or less than half the price of what people in this Province will have to pay at the end of the day for their light bill.

I ask you again today, Premier: Will you stand up and tell the people of this Province why you are choosing to do a deal that will gouge them on their light bills and at the same time give Nova Scotians a break?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the project that we are developing, the project that we refer to as Lower Churchill, Muskrat Falls, is being developed to meet the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It is not being developed to meet the needs of anybody else. We need to make sure that we have a reliable, low cost supply of electricity available for our own needs.

In building that alternative, Muskrat Falls, which is the least cost alternative, in building that alternative we have excess capacity. The choice is to let the excess water run over the falls and get nothing in return or to sell that water and get something for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. As we have done with every other project, Mr. Speaker, that we have developed, we will get something for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government is dodging the question. They do not want to explain to the people of this Province why they have done a deal that is going to cost them twice as much for electricity in Newfoundland and Labrador than what it is going to cost to the people of Nova Scotia.

Mr. Speaker, Nalcor and SNC-Lavalin announced last week that they finalized a contract to design and build the Muskrat Falls power station.

Now that the contract is finalized, I ask the Premier today: Will you release the details of the agreement or are you going to continue to keep the information secret from the people of the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government has been very open in terms of the information that is made available through the Lower Churchill Project. There is information available on the Natural Resources Web site, there is information available that we filed with the Public Utilities Board, there is information available through the environmental hearings that are going on up in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. There is all kinds of information that the Premier has tabled, not once but twice here on the floor of the House of Assembly. There is all kinds of information that we have put out there, Mr. Speaker. We are certainly not a secretive government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With all due respect, I say to the minister, we know that the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services took the briefing for her new department, when she went into it, off the Internet. Mr. Speaker, I fail to agree that all the details on Muskrat Falls and the contract would be on the Internet; that is why we are asking the questions.

Mr. Speaker, according to the environmental assessment process, the Muskrat Falls Project really consists of three subprojects; the generation project, the Labrador-Island transmission project, and the Newfoundland-Nova Scotia transmission project. Each of these is at various stages in the environmental assessment process right now.

I ask the Premier: Why are we finalizing construction contracts when the project is still undergoing environmental assessment, when it has not been sanctioned by government, it has no environmental approval granted –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS JONES: - and the agreement with the Innu has not been ratified?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, given that this government is always looking forward to make sure that we are ready to meet the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we have to start work today for projects that will happen in three, four, five, eight, ten years down the road. To be able to meet the needs that we anticipate we will need in terms of our power needs in 2015, 2017, 2018, we need to start work today on making sure we have the information available. That is what we are doing. We have been doing it for years, by the way. It is not just something that we have recently started to do. We have been gathering information to make sure that when this project is finally given environmental release, we are ready to move forward with the project, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but they are out doing environmental hearings and asking people what their concerns are, and at the same time they are putting out a contract to do the work before they even hear what people have to say.

Mr. Speaker, last week the Premier hailed an election eve deal between Ottawa and Quebec concerning Old Harry. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, she went before the microphones and said that she knew nothing of the deal and she did not have the information.

I ask today, Mr. Speaker, if they could tell us what the terms of the agreement are between Quebec and Ottawa on Old Harry and what impact will it have on Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we do have a copy of the agreement that has been signed between the Province of Quebec and the Government of Canada. We are actually now reviewing that document; it just came into our possession over the weekend is my understanding. I actually saw a copy of it this morning myself. I have not had an opportunity to review it.

What I am told by officials at this point, where they have done a cursory review, is that it is very similar to the accords that have been done with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. The agreement is very similar. We will go through it with a fine-tooth comb to make sure that it is something that is acceptable to us as the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, but the agreement was between the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada.

In fairness, I would suggest to the member opposite that she may want to check with the Government of Quebec or the Government of Canada if she has any particular discussions or concerns about the negotiations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously we will have to talk with someone because the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is definitely out of the loop on this particular file.

Mr. Speaker, there are, potentially, billions of dollars in royalties at stake here from a resource that will be owned by Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador. Is the minister telling me today that your Premier was not at the table? Your Premier was not consulted? Your Premier had no knowledge or details of the negotiations ongoing between Quebec and Ottawa?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, she is resorting again now to fear mongering. When she cannot make it on the points and she cannot make it on the details of the arrangement, she will fear monger.

Mr. Speaker, what happened last week was quite simply that the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada entered into an agreement similar to the one that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Nova Scotia have entered into with the Government of Canada. It now allows us an opportunity to put in place a dispute resolution mechanism to be able to look at the boundary that is at issue here.

The assertion that the Opposition Leader makes regarding the value of this find is very, very preliminary. There has not even been any oil found at this point, Mr. Speaker, is what I would say to you. It is exploration that is going to occur and they may find something.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, that was a different tune than the minister was quoted in saying last week when he said that this could be potentially a larger find than Hibernia. Today he tells us that he does not know if there is anything out there.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the issue at hand here is that even though we are talking about a management agreement, the government opposite is going on the assumption that the agreement might be the same as what exists between Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada and Nova Scotia.

I ask the minister again: Why are you out of the loop? Why was Newfoundland and Labrador not contacted and why was your Premier left out of the details of this contract until after the fact?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, just so we understand, there was an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec. We do many agreements as a Province with the Government of Canada. We do not have the Government of Quebec sitting by our side while we do those. We are an independent jurisdiction and we do our own deals. The Government of Quebec do their own deals, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SKINNER: We are not sitting at that table, and I fail to understand why the Leader of the Opposition would think that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador should be sitting at that table. The Government of Canada deals with the Government of Quebec separately. They deal with us separately. That is all there is to it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, this government announced a new Department of Child, Youth and Family Services back in March of 2009. This department was supposed to strengthen the services for children, youth and families but we have seen little progress. Today nearly two years later we finally had a management structure in one region of the Province that has been announced. Meanwhile, the Auditor General discovered that 90 per cent of risk assessments and 94 per cent of family centred action plans for children in long-term protection were not completed.

I ask the minister today: Why was the proper work not being done to protect our children that have been placed in long-term protection?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, government takes the issues regarding child protection, Child, Youth and Family Services quite seriously. Mr. Speaker, it was based on reports similar to the AG's report, which include the Clinical Services Review, and the Turner report, which led this government to create the new department in the first place. We knew there were issues and we needed to deal with them directly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

The minister, in responding to the Auditor General's report, cited things like risk assessment as only one component. Also, things like the case management system that they have in place are currently being re-examined at and restructured.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the government this: Whether it is a new system or an old system of accountability that is in place for the children of this Province, how adequate will it be if you as a government do not ensure that the conditions of it are being met?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the creation of this new department was all about accountability.

It is all about making sure that the system that is set up for child protection in Newfoundland and Labrador has the safeguards that are necessary, has the appropriate risk assessment, and also has the appropriate monitoring that is attached to it. Mr. Speaker, this government invested over $24 million in recent years, and created two hundred new positions, but despite that investment, as government, we did not feel that we were getting the results that we needed in this program area.

As a result, Mr. Speaker, we have taken this service out of the regional health authorities; they are in the process of transitioning into a new department. One thing that is clear, Mr. Speaker, is that we need to make sure that we do quality control and appropriate audits to ensure that this work, on an ongoing basis, does meet the necessary standards.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess the Auditor General made the hon. member accountable, Mr. Speaker, because she is no longer the minister in that portfolio.

Mr. Speaker, they have had two years, and in two years the only reports from the Auditor General have been deficiencies that have occurred in the regulatory process, I say to the minister. The other thing he indicated is in section 5 of the act, that the Director of Child, Youth and Family Services has the responsibility to monitor and evaluate programs and standards. He pointed out that the director failed to monitor the protective intervention program standards, and regularly review or evaluate the program.

I ask the minister today, why have you failed to provide the proper resources to ensure that our most vulnerable children and the protection system in which you placed them are functioning properly?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One thing I need to note, because they are very important questions that are being posed by the Opposition here today, is that we knew there were issues. One thing that we saw in the Clinical Services Report that was completed by Susan Abell, was that there were ten areas where we needed to institute change. One thing that was particularly important there was to note that to change a system of this magnitude would take three to five years.

So, we are certainly on track to do that change. Mr. Speaker, it is not always about a resource issue in this department. It is about how the work is set up, how the work is completed, and how effective they can be. It is to ensure that the work is being done, and it is being overseen appropriately, Mr. Speaker. We can put more and more and more people into a system that is not efficient, and we are still going to get similar results, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Earlier today, the Citizens' Representative tabled a report on prescription drug practices at Her Majesty's Penitentiary. Mr. Fleming found that inmates are not getting proper access to drugs used to manage psychiatric problems. He reported that despite years of complaints, the psychiatrist employed by the government is too conservative in his prescribing practices; and, in many cases, he has cut back or eliminated access to drugs that had been prescribed by other doctors.

My question is for the Minister of Justice. Minister, you have known about this problem for years, why haven't you taken action to ensure that prisoners with psychiatric problems are getting the care they need in order to manage their mental health issues?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am delighted to respond to the hon. member's question as to what we are doing about psychiatric needs in our correctional institutions.

Since the release of the report, the Decades of Darkness, Mr. Speaker, just two years ago, we have put a number of supports in place to enhance mental health psychological services in our corrections. We have hired a full-time psychologist at HMP. We have hired an addiction counsellor at HMP. We have hired a second nurse. We have an innovative in-reach, transitional planning program for those with mental illness where people work with people with mental illness in the institution and follow them outside when they are released. We also have an intake addictions program offered through the John Howard Society. We also, Mr. Speaker, have a multi-disciplinarian team in place which consults regularly on mental health issues. So, we have done a lot, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with psychiatric situations at HMP.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I understand the minister met with the media just before the House opened and indicated that he was going to reject and has rejected the report of Mr. Fleming, the Citizens' Representative, basically because he is not specialized to make such a conclusion. I say to the minister I guess a lot of us are in positions that we are not specialized in. The Minister of Health is a lawyer, not a doctor, as the Minister of Fisheries is a teacher and he is certainly not a fisherman or has any understanding of the fishing industry.

I say to the minister: Mr. Fleming noted that by continuing to retain the services of this particular doctor, the minister has breached the fairness principles contained in the Citizens' Representative Act, a clear breach indicated by him.

My question to the minister: What have the individual repercussions been of your department and your failure to properly have drugs prescribed at HMP, and why are you allowing this to continue?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has effectively answered his own question.

We rejected the report of the Citizens' Rep for very obvious reasons. The recommendation in that report was not based on any kind of appropriate standard of review. Mr. Fleming, in our estimation, does not have the expertise or the jurisdiction to comment on the professional judgment or prescription practices of a physician, and neither do I, Mr. Speaker. For that reason, we have rejected the recommendation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The minister of no answers.

My next question is for the Premier. We all know, of course, of the famous, or should I say infamous, office that we have in Ottawa and what it costs us on an annual basis. The same office, of course, that has been unoccupied for approximately one year now with the resignation of the former representative. We have claimed for years that this is an absolute waste of money, of taxpayers' money. For example, this year, we have already paid out over $100,000 for rent of an office in Ottawa that we have not used and have not had anybody in. If you call there, someone answers the phone and says we have to refer you back to Ottawa.

My question to the Premier is: You told us in this House in December it was on your radar, you would have an answer for us to that question within weeks. It is now a month and we do not have an answer. Premier, what are you going to do with the Ottawa office and when are you going to stop wasting the taxpayers' money?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The representative that we had in Ottawa played a very, very important role and our government at the time thought it very, very important that we have a connection there between the Province and the federal government. The Premier said, just before Christmas, that it is under advisement. It is still under advisement. When the decision is made, we will let you know.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty regarding the future of the shrimp processing plant at Port Union. The plant was damaged last fall by Hurricane Igor. Naturally, the 180 or so workers at the plant are worried about their future. One of the questions, Mr. Speaker, that they have for the minister, is whether there will be a special program this year to keep them in some kind of earnings while their plant is down.

I ask the minister: What are you doing to help the plant workers of Port Union get through a season without employment in their facility?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, the member for the area, myself, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs met with a large delegation last Wednesday. It was an information gathering session, Mr. Speaker, and we have committed that we will meet with them in a few weeks time to see if we can map out a way forward.

This is a group that, unfortunately, were put out because of Igor last year. Mr. Speaker, it is a point of note that in the shrimp industry in areas six and seven, it is very likely there is going to be another cut this year. So, that can impact on the decision that has been made by the company. The company is looking at making a final determination around that plant sometime in September and October.

So, there are challenges that have to be faced, Mr. Speaker. Together, we as a government, the union, and the company have to work to find a way to support these workers, and we will do our utmost to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on March 11, grooming ended on snowmobile trails province-wide. The Newfoundland and Labrador Snowmobile Federation reports that it has run out of money to continue its grooming this winter. Snowmobiling is an overwhelmingly popular sport in this Province. I spent all weekend blowing snow and there is plenty on the Northern Peninsula to last for a long time yet this year. It is an important source of tourism dollars.

I ask the minister: Is government willing to subsidize the federation so that it may continue to groom our Province's snowmobile trails and not jeopardize this all-important winter tourism industry?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I, too, was saddened to hear that the Newfoundland and Labrador Snowmobile Federation was going to cease grooming. Around early March they wrote me, Mr. Speaker, to inform me of that.

I guess there is a combination of reasons for that this year. We are certainly disappointed, the first thing being, that the snow came late. The snow did not come until the middle or toward the end of January. When it came, it came in a hurry so the grooming took awhile to get going.

The real reason, Mr. Speaker, is their grooming is based on sales. This year, they had less than 7,000 sales of permits and normally they plan for 12,000. So, Mr. Speaker, that is the reason grooming has ceased this year in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, part of the reason why trail passes were not sold this year was not only because the weather was a little late coming, but the fact is that grooming in this Province is unacceptable. People who normally buy trail passes are protesting, if you will, the purchase of their trail passes because what is being offered as a grooming process throughout this trail system is just not proper.

Mr. Speaker, the Chair of the Newfoundland and Labrador Snowmobile Federation has come out and said even if the government had granted his requests that they put forward to have increases in their trail passes and so on, it is unlikely that enough money would come to cover the operations for this year. The reason being, the money is just not there to support the infrastructure that is needed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose his question.

MR. DEAN: My question is this, Mr. Speaker: Is government willing to commit to making this sport a priority and make a long-term commitment to help fund this group?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, just let me say that in 2004 there was a piece of legislation passed in this House, I might add, unanimously; not only did this side of the House support it but that side of the House certainly supported it. The Leader of the Opposition stood up and spoke to it; the critic of the day stood up and spoke to it. Not only did they want it, Mr. Speaker, they wanted to rush it through the House of Assembly it was so important. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we did. We put through a user pay system. Right now that legislation lasts in this House. Mr. Speaker, we have not forgotten about the trails in this Province. As a matter of fact, in the last several years we have spent millions of dollars on trails in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, just this fall we spent one million dollars on repairs to the trail system in this Province. We have hardly forgotten about the trail system. We will continue to work with the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker, to make it happen. As a matter of fact, we just struck an interdepartmental committee for that reason.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in the light of recent revelations about the death of Mr. Peter Hickey, at the new Western Health long-term care facility, his sister Lucy Sheehan wants to make sure that this situation never happens again to another patient or family. Western Health has said it is doing a review of this case but, Mr. Speaker, last December the minister promised that there would be an operational review of the whole facility.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: What is the status of that review?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, this incident that occurred at Corner Brook Long-term Care is certainly very tragic and very unfortunate and Western Health has apologized to the family.

I indicated previously that there were benchmarking reviews going on at Eastern Health by a company by the name of Health Care Management out of Toronto. In recent discussions with them it appears that their specialty is not long-term care. We have had a number of internal reviews that have been ongoing, Mr. Speaker, and as I think everyone is aware there have been issues out there with the Corner Brook long-term care. A number of family meetings took place between July 15 and September 23, Mr. Speaker, and a resident family council was put together in November 2010. Management changes took place in December 2010 and on March 17 and March 18 an expert on long-term care quality was at the Corner Brook long-term care. There is an internal review ongoing, Mr. Speaker. I am waiting for the results of that internal review then we will look at the operational review.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, could the minister give us an idea of how long that internal review will take?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, the matter is ongoing to the best of my knowledge in discussions with Western Health officials. I do know, Mr. Speaker, this matter has recently surfaced in the media. It is a very unfortunate and tragic situation, and I certainly concur with the feelings of the family, Mr. Speaker, that whatever steps necessary are taken to ensure that this does not happen to anyone again.

What I will say to the member opposite is that we take this matter very seriously and we will await the internal review. I will ask to have the matter sped up, Mr. Speaker, and then we will see where it will go from there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last fall, the Department of Health and Community Services held public consultations about long-term care and home care. The people who spoke at these sessions had some disturbing stories to tell about their experiences with long-term care. They talked about the urgent need to fix the system, because people are suffering. The government does not appear to feel a sense of urgency, despite what people said at those sessions.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, after three years and two ministers promising a long-term care and community support services strategy, when are we going to see this strategy, and will it have a plan of action to address the crisis?

He says that he see the urgency. He has said that about the incident we have just talked about in Corner Brook. I do not see urgency from the minister.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on numerous occasions we have discussed the long-term care strategy. We heard from over 500 people this year who attended public sessions, Mr. Speaker. There were 108 people who presented directly, and forty-three written submissions.

Mr. Speaker, this government, while we await the finalization of the strategy, continues to invest in long-term care services. Over $256 million has been invested in various aspects of long-term care and personal care over the last period of time. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, one of the things we are doing, is working with groups like the Mount Pearl Seniors Independence Group. Mr. Speaker, recently we provided them with $20,000, out of the first of the seniors wellness grants, to continue the great work they are doing.

Mr. Speaker, we are doing work with groups like this, to the building of long-term care facilities, Mr. Speaker, and when the Long-term Care Strategy is finalized, we will present it. We will continue to do the work that is necessary to improve the live of residents of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

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

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 26.(5)(a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling fourteen Orders in Council relating to funding pre-commitments for the 2011-2012 to the 2013-2014 fiscal year.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Pursuant to section 44 of the Citizens' Representative Act, I am pleased to table a report of the Citizens' Representative entitled, Citizens' Representative – Investigation of Psychiatric Services in Provincial Correctional Facilities.

Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.

MR. KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed an honour and a privilege for me to rise today in this hon. House and to move the following private member's resolution:

BE IT RESOLVED that this House affirms that the development of the hydropower potential of Muskrat Falls is vital for the achievement of energy security in Newfoundland and Labrador and vital for fuelling industrial development and economic growth in Labrador and on the Island.

This motion, Mr. Speaker, is seconded by the hon. Member for Humber West.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

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

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act. (Bill 21)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Petroleum And Natural Gas Act. (Bill 15)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Medicine In The Province. (Bill 22)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

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

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

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991. (Bill 11)

I further give notice I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Repeal The Regulatory Reform Act. (Bill 12)

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Repeal The Subordinate Legislation Revision And Consolidation Act. (Bill 13)

I give further notice I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Proceedings Against The Crown Act. (Bill 14)

I give notice I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Support Orders Enforcement Act, 2006. (Bill 16)

I give further notice I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Mandatory Reporting Of Gunshot And Stab Wounds. (Bill 17)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 20)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000. (Bill 19)

I give further notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999, No. 2. (Bill 18)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answer to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

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

It pleases me to enter a petition again on behalf of the people of La Poile, as well as those individuals who use the ferry service going to and from La Poile, the other end of it being, of course, Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou and anybody who visits back and forth, including all tourists who come and visit our South Coast. The petition says:

WHEREAS the people of La Poile must use the provincial ferry system in order to travel to and from La Poile; and

WHEREAS the people of La Poile and visitors are required to wait at the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou from time to time for the ferry services; and

WHEREAS there is no restroom/waiting room area at the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou where users of the ferry service may utilize washroom facilities; and

WHEREAS citizens of all ages, including men, women, children, seniors, and disabled persons, require washroom facilities as a basic human need in the course of their travels and particularly while awaiting the transit systems; and

WHEREAS it is an abuse of human dignity as well as health and safety regulations to allow such degrading and dehumanizing circumstances to continue;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the government to immediately construct and operate a waiting room/restroom facility at the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou, such that all users of the provincial ferry service which operates out of La Poile may be able to utilize such waiting room/washroom facilities.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, we went through, a couple of years ago, seventy-two petitions in this House when the former Member for Lake Melville was the former Minister of Transportation. It got to be so embarrassing to the government of the day that they finally relented and put a washroom where their ferry service runs. Now, that is not too much to ask.

I do not know if anybody up in Change Islands has that problem, I do not know if anybody who goes to Bell Island has that problem if they need to use a washroom, or if anywhere has that problem where when you are waiting for a provincial ferry you do not have a washroom to use. I would suggest the Rose Blanche, La Poile service is probably the only one left.

I call upon the Minister of Transportation and Works; I implore him, for God's sake, not only for the residents who use this service every day of their lives, but the tourists who come there. It is pretty bad when someone comes to visit, they are down waiting for the ferry and they have to run back to John's house, or Jack's house, or someone else's house because they need to use the washroom while they are waiting for the ferry. There is absolutely no need of it, and hopefully this government will again come to its senses. I brought this to their attention earlier. They did come through and put the money down there for the Ramea-Burgeo one and the people of Grey River, but hopefully they will see how this is demeaning, dehumanizing again; in fact, contrary to the laws. I would think if you are going to provide a service you do not just put the facilities on the boat, you also make the facilities available to anybody who uses the boat, and on the end of the wharf, or nearby, is a pretty good place to put it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair just wants to address the situation again with petitions. While the Chair did not interrupt the hon. member in presenting his petition, because it is obviously an important concern to the people that he represents, but there has been a ruling made here in the past that all petitions, before presented here to the House, must be vetted through the Clerk's table and prayer of the petition read.

The hon. Opposition House Leader certainly read the prayer of the petition. This is the second petition, one delivered on Thursday, one delivered here today, and my understanding is neither one of them has been vetted through the Clerk's table. I ask hon. members for their co-operation in the future, all hon. members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order; or a point of clarification, explanation.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: A point of clarification, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, you are absolutely correct. The petition that I entered on Thursday was not vetted by the Table. It was entered. In fact, the Clerk of the House and myself had a brief conversation after. In fact, one of the words in it was inappropriate he advised me; but, any petition that I deliver after that, they are all one and the same. There are no changes whatsoever other than the signature changes. So is it necessary, under those circumstances, to still have it vetted, because the prayer has certainly not changed?

MR. SPEAKER: Absolutely, I say to the hon. member. If the petition is going to be presented on the floor of the House - because the Chair has no way of knowing whether it is the same petition or not, and it is something that we all have agreed to, and I ask all hon. members for their co-operation.

Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Justice, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Correctional Services, Bill 9, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Correctional Services, Bill 9, and that Bill 9 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 9 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 Respecting Correctional Services", carried. (Bill 9)

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Correctional Services. (Bill 9)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 9 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 9 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 9 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 Human Resources, Labour and Employment, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act, Bill 10, 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 Labour Relations Act, Bill 10, and that Bill 10 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House 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 Human Resources, Labour and Employment to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act", carried. (Bill 10)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act. (Bill 10)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 10 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 10 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 10 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 3, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Public Accountants Act. (Bill 4)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 4, An Act To Amend The Public Accountants Act, be now read a second time.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Minister Responsible for the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector, An Act To Amend The Public Accountants Act, 2009 be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Accountants Act". (Bill 4)

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

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

It is my privilege today to begin second reading on Bill 4, An Act To Amend The Public Accountants Act, 2009. This is a bill that some may remember was brought forward last fall during the sitting of the Legislature; however, due to time constraints it just dropped on the Order Paper. Today, now we are bringing it forward again, the first opportunity that we had in the spring sitting of our Legislature.

Basically, Mr. Speaker, what the amendment does is that we are removing responsibilities for complaints and discipline with respect to public accounting in the Province. We are removing that from the Public Accountants Licensing Board and we are passing it on to the individual accountant bodies in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is similar to other legislation that we already have in the Province now with respect to professional boards. I could mention the engineers, the geoscientists, the architects, embalmers and funeral directors who come under the purview of the Department of Government Services. What we are doing is bringing the regulations now with respect to public accounting in line with the legislation from these other bodies.

The main intent of our legislation, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure public protection for the consumers in this Province who, from time to time, have to use the services of public accounting bodies. This act requires that every public accountant in the Province must also be a chartered accountant, a certified general accountant, or a certified management accountant. We also have, Mr. Speaker, two registered public accountants in the Province and these two were grandparented in quite a number of years. I understand that one of them dates back to 1967 when he began practising in public accounting in our Province.

Currently, Mr. Speaker, under the legislation the responsibility for complaints and discipline related to the practice of public accounting in the Province rests with the Public Accountants Licensing Board. We have determined, Mr. Speaker, that this is not really necessary now and that is the reason for the change and the amendment to the legislation. These processes, I understand, can cost a considerable amount of money, and all the licensing board would have to do would be to go back to the different respective bodies and collect more money from these groups. Mr. Speaker, I understand also that some of these discipline practices can cost up to $100,000 a year. That is money that the board itself does not currently have.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say that the Public Accountants Licensing Board that has been administering this up until now has asked for this change, and certainly government agrees with the option that they have presented. Also, Mr. Speaker, our department has consulted with all of the regulatory bodies that are responsible for the chartered accountants, for the certified management accountants, and the certified general accountants. They are all in agreement, Mr. Speaker, with the amendment to this motion. The individual accounting bodies, like I said before, have the funding themselves and the expertise to conduct disciplinary procedures with their respective bodies, and if they did not, in the event that they did not have the funding, they have been told that they can call on the national association and they would provide them with any funding that they require.

So, Mr. Speaker, these amendments, as I said, will remove provisions related to complaints and discipline from the Public Accountants Act, 2009, and will vest responsibility for the disciplinary procedures within the Chartered Accountants Act, the Certified Management Accountants Act, and the Certified General Accountants Act in relation to public accounting practices in this Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, on that, I will take my seat and provide opportunity for other members to comment on this amendment to the Public Accountants Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It is a pleasure to be able to stand today and make a few comments with regard to Bill 4, An Act To Amend The Public Accountants Act.

I think the minister has already stated very clearly that the amendment that is taking place here with Bill 4 is more or less just clarifying and bringing this piece of legislation in line with several other pieces of legislation that was brought forward in previous sessions. He referenced - and I remember those from the former minister - the professional engineers, the geoscientists, and so on.

I guess the key to it all, Mr. Speaker, is what is happening here, it is two-fold. Number one – and I have to say, we will be supporting this piece of legislation, the amendments, because the minister has outlined the reasons why we would do that, because this is mainly due and in support of public protection. Mr. Speaker, we also agree with it for the very simple reason because the licensing board has asked for this change and all the regulatory bodies that the minister has mentioned are in total agreement. As he said, it was a very costly process. Some cases, he mentioned, could go as high as $100,000.

Mr. Speaker, we know that in this Province, maybe there have been cases in the past, but from just general knowledge we know that most of the accountants in this Province are very credible individuals; but that does not take away from this piece of legislation being brought forward because it keeps each and every individual, regardless of what profession you may be in, it keeps them accountable and it also gives a means to deal with any allegation that may be brought forward. As I said previously, the Department of Government Services has made several amendments and changes to quite a few pieces of legislation in most recent times.

Mr. Speaker, another thing that we have learned in the past with changes that are brought forward, not only to legislation from the Department of Government Services but various departments, it is brought forward many times to bring it in line with other jurisdictions throughout our country. We know, from travelling from time to time to attend the Public Accounts Committees in other provinces, we see all too often how important it is to have legislation in line with the legislation of another province. Many times there are incidents that take place and the individual might move from one province to the other and to be dealt with properly, the legislation has to be in line with that put forward in our own Province.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 4, amending the Public Accountants Act, currently any type of accountant who practices public accounting is subject to discipline under the Public Accountants Act. This bill will make accountants licensed to practice public accounting under the Public Accountants Act subject to disciplinary proceedings under the Chartered Accountants Act, 2008, the Certified General Accountants Act, 2008, and the Certified Management Accountants Act in matters that affect public accountancy.

The purpose of the bill is to make those who practice public accounting subject to discipline rules under their own specific acts instead of through the Public Accountants Act.

The newly inserted sections 25, 26, and 27 outline that accountants who are members of the certified general accountants, the certified management accountants of Newfoundland and Labrador and the members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Newfoundland and Labrador will then practice public accounting, be subject to the disciplinary measures under the Certified General Accountants Act, and the other acts that each of them now have to on their own accord.

Mr. Speaker, it also goes on to say under discipline measures, under section 27, the Certified General Accountants Act is amended such that the registrar and the complaints authorization committee has the power, with respect to an allegation as the disciplinary panel under section 25 of the Public Accountants Act. I think that is very important.

When we come to the Public Accountants Act where it reads as follows, "Effect of filing allegation", we know from time to time – hopefully the lesser of that – I guess, we do not want to hear any complaints that have to be brought forward. Those allegations are brought forward and there is a means where they can be dealt with and dealt with appropriately.

I believe, and the minister probably can correct me on this when he stands to close debate, I do not think the Public Accountants Act itself has been proclaimed as we speak. Now, I could be corrected on that.

Mr. Speaker, we also know that this piece of legislation, when we talk about an allegation, more or less means a written document that is brought forward and it has to do with a complaint. A complainant is someone who has an issue, and there can be several reasons for that as outlined: it could be "professional misconduct," it could be "incompetence," "conduct unbecoming of a public accountant," "incapacity or unfitness to practise as a public accountant". As I stated in the beginning, I do not think we hear too much about any of that in this Province. Still, so that the people of this Province are protected, that is a good reason why this should be brought forward.

I know there is nothing in this piece of legislation like most of the pieces we have seen in the past where any action taken or penalties imposed would be within each individual act and not listed in this piece of legislation.

The only thing I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, and I would like the minister to clarify this a little when he is closing, is under section 27(1) and 25(1) where it states, and it lists the same thing under all three: "At least one of the certified management accountants appointed by the board under subsection (4) shall be licensed as a public accountant under the Public Accountants Act." It lists all three for the Certified Management Accountants Act, the Chartered Accountants Act, and the Certified General Accountants Act.

I am wondering: Those individuals, where they speak about at least one person, are those the people who will serve on a panel if there is any disciplinary action? I was wondering if the minister could explain that in his closing comment.

Mr. Speaker, it also states in this piece of legislation that this act comes into force on the day that the Public Accountants Act comes into force. I will just say this in conclusion: This piece of legislation, as well as others from that department – numerous pieces have been debated here in this hon. House – and I think the key to it all, that the residents of our Province have been very aware of, is that once a piece of legislation comes in and the parties involved with that piece of legislation are in total agreement, the general public has to be very knowledgeable that this is being done for their protection. To see that their rights are taken out, if something should go wrong, that there is legislation within our Province, that their rights can be protected.

Mr. Speaker, with that I just want to thank you for the opportunity. Hopefully the minister will be able to clarify that question when he closes debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to get up today and to speak to this act. One of the problems with following the minister and then the Member for Port de Grave, who outlined a lot of the germane points on this act, is that there is not a lot of meat left on the bones to go through. I do not want to repeat a lot of what was said, but I do have some things that I feel will add to the conversation.

As was outlined, and perhaps alluded to by a number of people, there are a number of groups that do regulate themselves. As part of the regulation process, they also institute disciplinary processes which have, to my mind, a number of very valuable functions. This particular piece of legislation here is part of a suite of consumer protection legislation that is administered by the Department of Government Services. As has been mentioned previously, this is mostly a tweak in the legislation to respond to the concerns of the different organizations involved. To my mind, when groups such as these bring forward perfectly adequate processes that maintain the type of consumer protection that was initially envisaged in the original legislation, in the white paper that drove that initial legislation, then it is always a good thing.

I agree with the Member for Port de Grave that the public does have to keep themselves informed. Consumer protection is there for your protection. If you are not aware of it, there is really very little that the government can do, short of going out and trying to handhold everyone every time they make a transaction. People do need to be aware of the different goods and services that they undertake to purchase and that there are certain standards that go along with it.

To my mind, it is not only a positive thing for the government to have legislation like this and also for the individual organizations to undertake these disciplinary measures. The question might be why do they go and do this? It seems to me that there are a number of things that you can work on, one of course being that having the disciplinary panel in place first of all ensures that there is a consistent, logical set of rules that everyone in that group is expected to follow. That set of rules are to be adhered to and there are definite consequences for not doing it.

Now, as consumers or anyone who reads the news or listens to the news, we all know that there are incidents of groups that take advantage of consumers not necessarily being aware of what their rights and privileges are and it really cuts across all occupations, all professions. We see things in education, we see things in the medical field, we see things in the legal field, and we see things in the accounting field. There is really no shortage of places where we can put our money and yet at the same time we need to know that these people are perhaps looking out for our best interests.

I think when you have a disciplinary process in place, it gives to the general public a certain amount of confidence that there are remedies if there is a situation where you feel like you have been hard done by, if you have not gotten the services that you have contracted for on a very honest, above-board manner, there is a mechanism whereby you can get a remedy. You can either get compensation in terms of the service, compensation in terms of the money paid. You can perhaps have this individual, particularly if they have a bit of a history of going down this road, perhaps, taken out of that particular profession. It is to the profession's best interest to have that mechanism because it allows them to maintain the integrity and the trustworthiness that most members, if not all members, will spend considerable time and effort trying to build in their own particular profession. The disciplinary process is one that is very necessary, it would certainly be one that you would hope does not have to be used, but nonetheless it is there.

As we break this down and we ask why are we going to take these three groups and take them out of a general piece of legislation and let them administer their own; they are in many ways distinct groups that rely on particular technical areas, particular areas that they do particularly well, areas that differentiate themselves between each other. While it might seem to be okay to have sort of this global act that all groups will fall under, the trouble with global acts is that sometimes you lose the technical part of it that the groups really rely on to differentiate themselves. I think this is a good idea particularly now that these groups have come forward and said here is how we would like this to happen, here is how we would like to police ourselves. As long as it does provide good, if not increased consumer protection then this is a good piece of legislation to put forward.

Mr. Speaker, I finished my business degree in 1982, and at that time a number of my classmates went through and did accounting. It has been very interesting to watch the role of CAs, CMAs, and CGAs evolve over the years. We used to just use the general term bookies, which was sort of a pejorative that they were going out, getting all of this education just to be glorified bookkeepers, even though we knew it was way more than that, what they were going to do when they left.

It is very interesting to see the role of the CA, CGA, and CMA in the business community as they go into a lot of different areas rather than just record keeping and reporting. Oftentimes, you will see them play a very key role in the functions of planning, financing, taxation, and operations. Because of that, oftentimes you will see many of the CAs who have been with large CA firms going out into the private sector and taking on very high-level responsibilities within private organizations; in many cases, clients that they have had while they have been CAs. Because of the way that CAs, CMAs, and CGAs have evolved, they have a more global perspective that allows them to help deal with the business of doing business in a much better and a much broader way.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I will finish off. Certainly, my compliments to all of the parties involved for coming to this place where we have a piece of legislation that protects consumers' interests, and yet, meets the needs of the organizations involved.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am glad to have a bit of time to speak to this bill, Bill 4, An Act To Amend The Public Accountants Act.

Obviously, it is a bill that in and of itself is not totally substantial. It is a strictly housekeeping bill but one that is very, very necessary. Sometimes we use the term housekeeping as if it is something unimportant, but we all know that if we do not keep our house bad things can happen. It is the same way when it comes to legislation. There are things that we always need to be on top of to make sure that legislation is covering all the issues that need to be covered.

In this particular bill, it provides that chartered accountants, certified general accountants, and certified management accountants licensed to perform public accountancy under the Public Accountants Act would now be subject to disciplinary proceedings to misconduct arising from the practice of public accountancy under their own act. Instead of being disciplined under the Public Accountants Act, as they currently are, these three groups of people would now be, if necessary, disciplined under the Chartered Accountants Act, 2008, the Certified General Accountants Act, 2008, and the Certified Management Accountants Act, respectively. It makes all the sense in the world that they would be disciplined under their own acts, especially since those acts have been so framed that the associations are accountable to us. Through legislation, they are accountable for everything that they do. Their process of discipline is an accountable process in legislation. It just makes all the sense in the world then that these three groups of people should be held accountable under their own act.

We have to have a heightened level of professionalism. People deal with accountants, chartered accountants and certified general accountants sometimes in very trying moments in their lives and they need to have a sense of security in dealing with these people. They need to have a sense that they are safe in dealing with these people, and that if, for some reason, they ever were treated in a criminal fashion by these people or treated unjustly, that they can be assured they can go to the professional organization of these people and the individuals who may have acted accordingly would have correct discipline proceedings brought against them. It is both for the good of the community, the good of our society, as well as for the good of the individual chartered accountants and CGAs as well, because they too have to be protected. It is quite possible they could be charged wrongly by somebody, so it is very important that they too have protection.

What we have here in Bill 4 brings protection for everybody. It is essential that we have a healthy economy and business climate, and part of that is being sure that people can rely on financial professionals. Financial professionals do carry a lot of weight. They carry a lot of power, and allowing these professional organizations the power to maintain their own professional standards is a good thing. Number one, it gives them a sense of professionalism themselves when they can control their own situations and their own standards. We give them that right through legislation but, as I said, they also, through that very legislation, are accountable for carrying out those rights.

Giving professional organizations the power to investigate and act on allegations of professional misconduct by members also bolsters the public confidence, because the public knows that the organizations have everything that they need in order to investigate with regard to misconduct. Of course, if ever in judging allegations of misconduct an organization were to find that somebody was actually involved in a criminal activity then, of course, it would have to move outside the hands of the professional group.

Mr. Speaker, it is good for us that we are doing the little bit of housekeeping we are doing here today in passing Bill 4. I am sure the public will be very happy to know that there is more protection for them when it comes to their dealings with financial professionals. The financial professionals will know that they too are protected and if they are going to judged, if allegations are brought against them, it is their own peers with the highest level of professionalism who will be investigating those allegations.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services, if he speaks now he shall close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to thank my colleagues for their comments and co-operation with this particular piece of legislation.

I would like to, first of all, address a couple of points that were raised by my colleague from the District of Port de Grave. He is correct in saying that the Public Accountants Act, 2009, was not proclaimed. It was not proclaimed because there were several issues that had to be addressed further. The one with respect to discipline is the one that brought us to the point where we are today.

The other point that he raised, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that in the Province of the three bodies of accounting practices, in the chartered accountants group there are currently 174 members, certified general accountants there are thirty-nine, and the certified management accountants there are four. In addition to that, there is also what is classed as two registered public accountants who were grand-parented in many years ago. The point he raised was that in order to be a public accountant one must also have to be a chartered accountant, a certified management accountant or a certified general accountant.

Mr. Speaker, I also make reference to the point made by my colleague from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. She is certainly right when she says that this legislation is all about public protection for the consumers in the Province who have to deal with accountants from time to time in the course of their lifetime. Also, it ensures, as she said, accountability on the part of the conduct of members in the accountancy business in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation, as we have all pointed out now, will give the CAs, the CMAs and the CGAs responsibility for discipline within their particular group; also, that is in relation to public accounting in the Province. The discipline process now will be in line with that in other self-regulatory occupations throughout the Province. These amendments will, as well, bring the regulations now in line with other jurisdictions throughout our country.

On that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude debate on Bill 4, An Act To Amend The Public Accountants Act, 2009.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we will refer it to the Committee tomorrow, I guess.

With that, we will now call Bill 6, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: My apologies to the hon. the Government House Leader; I neglected to call for a vote on second reading of the bill.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Public Accountants Act. (Bill 4)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Accountants Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 4)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I had just previously said, we will refer it to the Committee of the Whole tomorrow.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, Order 5, Bill 6.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am ever so pleased to stand in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, that Bill 6, An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded by the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs that the said bill be read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act". (Bill 6)

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in this House; it is a pleasure to stand at any time in this House in regard to any of the things that we, as MHAs or ministers, might address for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This is an amendment that came to my attention shortly after I became the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It is an amendment that I have taken some ribbing over and that kind of stuff in regard to an amendment to the Standard Time Act because we have had amendments in the past that have been reversed in future governments. This act here may not seem to be anything earth-shattering, but it is an act that actually addresses an issue in Newfoundland and Labrador in that we are very unique in regard to the Standard Time Act as compared to North America and elsewhere in the world.

Right now, Mr. Speaker, in regard to daylight saving time, we adjust our clocks at 12:01 a.m. Mostly, in any other countries, North America, and states in the US that adhere to daylight saving time, they adjust their clock at 2:00 a.m. What happens is when you adjust your clock at 12:01 a.m., the first Sunday, I believe, in November is when it goes back, you are into the same day twice. In other words, when you adjust it one hour backward at the first Sunday in November, you actually fall back to 11:01 p.m. in the day previous. So in other words, you are in the day twice in one year.

This is nothing in regard to us as citizens. It does not mean a lot. If your time goes back, you have extra time for sleep, and you get an hour to do whatever you want to do in regard to entertainment, or such things as that. Where it comes into play is in regard to Microsoft and other companies that develop software in that they have to develop patches to compensate for that particular time change, particularly in Newfoundland and Labrador. This does not affect your own computer, your home computers, because it is not really significant. It does affect companies that collect data, incoming data in regard to anything that they might be doing inside their company. Companies in Newfoundland and Labrador such as Hydro, Newfoundland Power, Bell Aliant, or any of those types of companies might have issues with regard to those items.

When you look at it, when it drops back to 11:01 p.m., it seems that you collected the data on a Saturday instead of a Sunday on the incoming data. So, Microsoft, or whichever company they deal with, have to write a patch which takes some time to actually correct that data and the stamping of that time in regard to that piece of work. It might seem insignificant to people, the regular citizen, but it does create a problem within the companies that this affects.

I had a hard time, actually, understanding. As a matter of fact, when the request came in from a particular person, via e-mail, I read the e-mail, it caught my eye and then I started to do a little bit of research before I brought it forward to my officials. At first, they thought it was a little bit of significant as well because we have been turning back our clocks or putting them ahead at the 12:01 a.m. It is really not significant at all in regard to the spring daylight savings time issue in the second Sunday in March, I believe, because it is going forward, it is still in the same day. It only constitutes a problem in regard to the software packages when it goes back.

As I said before, there is a process that the companies have to go through. Microsoft, or whoever it may be, would have to write a patch. They send a patch to a particular company. They download that patch into their system which corrects any of the data that had been collecting during that particular time frame. We only have a few companies that it would affect. Certainly, in order to address that problem for those particular companies, then I think this is a worthwhile amendment to the act. It does not, as I said before, affect anything to do with the ordinary citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador. It does not give them any hardship or any issues that might arise in regard to their own personal computers or their own daily lives, because all we are doing is moving the time frame for the adjustment of the clock for daylight savings time from 12:01 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.

As I said, this is a standard right throughout North America, right throughout Canada. We are the only Province that adjusts its time at 12:01, as compared to 2:00 o'clock anywhere else in the country. This is actually a harmonization piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, because then that puts us in sync with the rest of North America, the rest of Canada, and also the rest of the world. I also want to make sure that the people out there understand that clocks will continue to change on the first Sunday in November, and on the second Sunday in March. The only thing that changes now is that the time changes at 2:00 o'clock, as compared to 12:01.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is a whole lot to say on this, other than I think it is a worthwhile amendment, in particular for the companies that it affects. We have to give notice to the software companies. They have to make an adjustment in their systems as well to accommodate Newfoundland and Labrador in regard to their updates. They will no longer have to write those particular patches. When the time comes next November, hopefully they will have everything in place.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat in the House, and I welcome any comments by my hon. colleagues on the opposite side.

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a privilege and an honour to be able to stand and speak for a few moments on Bill 6, as the minister just said, An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act.

I certainly can understand the minister being revved over bringing this one forward as one of his first pieces of legislation after going into the department, but then some things are necessary, simply for reasons that may not seem all that important to us but they are necessary to be done. I guess that is basically where this amendment falls. It proposes to change the time when the clocks change twice a year to a 2:00 a.m. time slot instead of a 12:00 a.m. time slot. Under the current legislation, at one minute past midnight on Sunday in the fall the clock changes back to Saturday at 11:00 p.m., and in the spring, they spring ahead to 1:00 a.m. I guess the 1:00 a.m. spring is not as complicated, necessarily, as what the 11:00 p.m. fallback could be for certain businesses and so on, as the minister mentioned a moment ago.

In most jurisdictions in North America, the change takes place at 2:00 a.m. instead of at midnight. It is kind of unnoticed by most people because more than likely at that point they are asleep, except for those who are working. By 2:00 a.m. most people will have retired for the night so they really do not notice the change. When it is at 12:00 a.m. there is still a lot of activity on the go typically, and going from 12:00 back to 11:00 o'clock certainly can be, I suppose, somewhat more of an inconvenience, if you will, if nothing else at that point in time.

Newfoundland has been the outliers with respect to this practice in that case. We really are the only ones who have that 12:00 a.m. change instead of the 2:00 a.m. The question we could ask ourselves is why does it matter, or does it matter, or why is it important? The intent here in terms of changing in this Province is to really form a good practice of consistency with other jurisdictions. If everyone else in North America that we do business with in particular, that we communicate with, and that we schedule our times with, if they all change at 2:00 a.m. rather than 12:00 a.m. then it would seem to make good sense that we would do the same thing.

We would also hope there is a potential that businesses that are more impacted by this change than what you or I might be as residents, might be able to realize some cost savings and some efficiencies in doing this time of 2:00 a.m. rather than the 12:00 a.m. process. The amendment will also address what is referred to as the cross-date threshold which takes place in the fall when the clocks go back from Saturday to Sunday and then back to Saturday.

The minister mentioned, and gave a couple of examples within our own Province, of businesses that very well could have problems doing that in terms of their computers and date-stamping. It is almost like it is being electronically filed twice. You have arrived at 12:00 midnight on Saturday, and then suddenly you go back an hour and then you arrive at 12:00 a.m. again. From a tracking and a computerization point of view, and the whole dating process that is involved with that, certainly it is easy to understand where there can be inconveniences, extra expenses and just really things that would cause you to need to track that properly and to track it further than if it was going through at 2:00 a.m. Then, of course, the time is only reverting to 1:00 a.m. compared to 11:00 p.m. in the other case. He mentions as well the fact that some computers and other electronic equipment would necessitate what they call special patches to be able to accommodate that process, so that it can be allocated for in that hour that is lost between one day going back to the other day and back to the next day again.

Apparently, government was tweaked to this problem by an e-mail - I believe the minister mentioned that as well - that came in from some tech industry which pointed out that we are the only jurisdiction that changes at midnight rather than at the 2:00 a.m. hour. I guess it is what we would call a dry piece of legislation in the fact that it is basically just having good governance practices across our Province the same as would be across the rest of North America and so on. This is something that needs to be changed but there is nothing earth-shattering about it. It is not a game changer as we might call it, Mr. Speaker, by no changes at all.

There does not appear to be any negative things about doing this. Of course, it is important even though legislative changes at times might seem very minor but you want to ask yourself, what is negatively impacted by making this change? Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, there really does not seem to be anything negative about changing it from 12:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Of course, that is important for us to understand.

The Newfoundland time zone, as we know it – and I do not know how many people would know this – is a very unique time zone, of course. I thought about this in doing some of the research and so on just to respond to this piece of legislation here this afternoon. Officially, the entire Province is in the Newfoundland time zone. I did not know that, to be honest. I know that most of Labrador follows the Atlantic Time Zone. It would just be the Island portion and the offshore islands in the South-Eastern Labrador communities south of Black Tickle, I believe, that follow the Newfoundland time zone. Actually, the entire Province is in that zone, yet they choose to follow a different time zone. So that is interesting to know.

Where that tradition or that way of changing times came about I would not be sure, but it is interesting to know that the whole Province is in the Newfoundland time zone and yet it is split up through Labrador in terms of the time zone that they actually follow. It is also interesting to note there are places that do not change their time and they do not take advantage of the daylight savings time in the summertime and so on. It is also interesting to note that Newfoundland and Labrador was a separate dominion when the time zones were established. It was for this reason it seems, that we get our time zone compared to the other ones.

The unique thing that is important about this, the uniqueness of this time zone, is the fact that it is really an attention gathering time zone, if you will. For example, when we look at the year 2000 celebrations and the millennium change, we know that we were the first ones in North America to celebrate the new millennium. That is pretty significant. So having our time zone as we do allows us to be the first to experience and to enjoy things like that, in terms of every year when celebrations come and so on.

It is interesting to note that back in 1988, you will recall, I am sure, that the government of the day decided that we would try double daylight savings time in the summer that year. Of course, it was great for those of us who liked to be up late in the evenings and so on. It was 11 and 12 o'clock at night in certain parts of the Province and it still was daylight; it was not darkening at all. The issue became in the mornings in the fall when the schools opened and children began to go back to school and suddenly young children were having to be put on the roadside and in bus shelters and so on waiting for their buses in the dark. So it proved to be not such a popular thing from that perspective, and it was changed back to the one hour. I guess it really became a dead issue and something that we might not ever see again.

So, I do not think this new amendment will create any types of controversy in terms of that. It also will not affect those who go to bed at 11 o'clock or whatever the case might be. Those out in the wee hours of the morning, they might notice it, but other than that, that is about all that you can see.

In conclusion, the Standard Time Act states that time in Newfoundland and Labrador is three and a half hours after Greenwich Time. It also covers daylight saving time in the period of March to November, which reduces that time frame to two and a half hours, and this new amendment basically says that the magical switching time, as the minister suggested, will be at 2:00 a.m. So, again, no objection to that, of course, and I will enjoy it. Hopefully I will be enjoying my nap, as most of us will be doing when the time changes and we will not even know that it happened.

So, thank you, Mr. Speaker for the time this afternoon to be able to speak to this amendment.

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for St. John's South and Deputy Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am not going to belabour the point, because it is a relatively benign piece of legislation, but it is an important piece, and some of the viewers who are looking at the proceedings this afternoon on television may be wondering why we are debating changing the time. As the minister pointed out when he introduced the legislation, it is not so much about changing the Standard Time, it is to bring us in line with the rest of North America.

Currently, our time, when it rolls back from 12:01 to 11:01, not only changes the time back an hour, but it changes the date. So we go from one date back on the calendar, and then move forward again. For companies that are supplying software and technology to this Province, it creates an added burden on them, and perhaps additional cost to companies and industry that are purchasing the software or machinery that have to deal with daylight saving time changes. It will affect that.

I, for one, appreciate the fact that we have a half-hour time zone for Newfoundland and Labrador, and I certainly would not approve any changes to that because we are one of three jurisdictions in the world that has that uniqueness, and I respect that. It does make us somewhat unique. It allows our uniqueness of culture and for who we are as a people to stand out. This particular piece of legislation will create efficiencies in software and technology for the companies that supply software and technology to this Province.

The previous member who spoke just before me said he would probably be enjoying his nap. We are probably all at that age now but I do recall years ago, in the Breezeway, cause for great celebration when the clock back from 12:01 to 11:01. Many of us who went to university would probably recall that cause for celebration.

The time change here is not a complicated piece of legislation; many would find it amusing that we are debating this in the House, but it is very much a required piece of legislation and I will be supporting the legislation for that purpose.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I just want to go on record with regard to Bill 6, and to say I am supporting it. It is has been spoken to, both by the minister and two of my colleagues in the House. It is a straightforward, I think, piece of legislation. It is one thing to have different time zones, which we have, and ours being very particular, having a half-hour difference. It is another thing in today's world of technology where we are all connected around the world to have people not being together in one country with regard to when we start daylight saving time, because that is totally separate from the different time zones and has been explained by my colleagues. I am sure people listening have heard them, that it is something that is necessary for business and for good order. It has become really necessary, I think, as I have just alluded to, in this day and age where we are so much now connected – right around the world – connected globally, that something like this where the whole computerization of our lives is such a factor. It is very important that synchronization happen and that is what this is all about, making sure that we are synchronized as we use things like the daylight saving time method. It is a logical piece of legislation and of course I support it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, am going to join with my colleagues here in the House of Assembly this afternoon and speak just for a few minutes on this important bill. As other people have said, it is a straightforward bill. It is something that is easy to understand, and it is easy to see the logic as to why we would need to bring it in right now. It is also a very important bill.

Most countries in the world use 1:00 a.m., 2:00 a.m., or 3:00 a.m. as their reference point when they want to make changes to daylight saving time. Every other province in Canada that implements daylight saving time, they do it at 2:00 a.m. Of course, here in this Province, we have been changing the clocks at 12:01 a.m. When you look at what happens across the country – and Newfoundland and Labrador being the only Province that would change the clocks differently – you can see where maybe there is not only a little problem with the computers as the minister has alluded to and has talked about the fact that there are some software changes that have to be made because when you change at 12:01 a.m. back to 11:01 p.m., you are not just changing the hour, you are actually changing the date as well.

I can also probably anticipate and see where there have been difficulties with scheduling, particularly with airline flights, for example. You can imagine if we were changing our clocks an hour earlier or two hours earlier than the other provinces, then that would cause a scheduling conflict and probably not something that they did not get past but something that certainly had to be considered when airlines were doing their long-term planning for flights.

What this adjustment does is it standardizes this Province and makes us come along with the rest of the provinces in Canada and we are all on the same page kind of thing. It does not change the date, does not change the time of the year when it happens, it just changes the hour in which we actually do our daylight savings time.

Mr. Speaker, there is not a lot to say about this piece of legislation other than that. It is going to bring our Province in line with the rest of the provinces in Canada. Clocks will still continue to change on the first Sunday in November and the second Sunday in March just like they always have, but it will us now on the same page as the rest of Canada.

My colleagues have all spoken in agreement with this bill. There is a lot that has been said, a lot has been covered, so I will not belabour it any more than that.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I stand again in this House with regard to closing debate, an amendment to the Standard Time Act. As my hon. colleagues have all spoken in favour of the actual amendment, it do not seem to be a significant piece of legislation in regard to the general public but it is really, in some instances, a significant piece of legislation when you are talking about companies that rely on correct data processing and collection. That is where it comes in. Also, the Member for Lewisporte actually alluded to the time changes in regard to flights and the scheduling of flights and that kind of thing. I am not positively sure if it comes into bear there but, certainly, it is something that I would like to see with regard to this piece of legislation that makes us concurrent and also standardizes the adjustment of the time right across Canada, the US and, particularly, most of the world.

Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear, before I sit down, that this amendment does nothing in regard to the adjustment of time zones. I have to be very clear on that. It does not affect those whatsoever. We will be exactly the same time zone as we have been for as long as I can remember and beyond. Mr. Speaker, all this does is adjusts and establishes the time that we would adjust our clocks in regard to the daylight savings time from 12:01 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. For all the reasons that we have spoken about with regard to the debate here in the House, that is the only thing that this does. It changes from 12:01 a.m. now to 2:00 a.m.

As we all know, Mr. Speaker, in regard to people changing their clocks and whatever it may be, most people probably change them when they get up in the morning. They know that the time has gone forward or back and they change their time when they get up in the morning, or they actually change the time before they go to bed, because it does not mean anything to them other than the change has happened.

In this case here, we are making this amendment in regard to a request that came forward from an individual who works with a company that actually collects data and has to request a patch be put in place by the company that provides their software adjustments. So, that is all it does, and then it came to my attention that there are a number of companies in Newfoundland and Labrador that have the same issues.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I take my seat in the House, and I will try to answer any questions in regard to this important bill when we go to Committee stage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act. (Bill 6)

MR. SPEAKER: The bill has now been read the second time.

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

Now, tomorrow, presently?

MS BURKE: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole presently, by leave. (Bill 6)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call from the Order Paper Order 6, Bill 7.

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, that Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999". (Bill 7)

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to get up in this House and address this act in regard to amendments to the Municipalities Act, 1999.

This act is the most substantial act that we have within the department. It governs and sets regulations and sets the governance structure for municipalities, LSDs, and bodies right throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. It guides them in the process that they have to go through in delivering the services that they provide to citizens under their municipality. That is essentially what it does.

Over a number of years, in regard to the AGM held yearly by Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, there are a number of resolutions that have come to the floor of that particular AGM. Those have been introduced, they have been discussed and debated in regard to that process, and they have been requested. The request has gone forward and been adopted. I should have said that they have been adopted by MNL and municipalities, the mayors, and the councillors that are in attendance at Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador AGM. Then they have come forward for consideration to the Department of Municipal Affairs to make amendments to the Municipalities Act.

There are a number of amendments that are listed in regard to this important piece of legislation, but I would like to reference a number of them as I go through because these amendments modernize legislation, they certainly strengthen municipal governance, and they also improve the operations of municipalities throughout the Province. I have to say, since I became the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that I have grown to appreciate the efforts and the good work that is done by municipal leaders all throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. They are elected. They are a different level of government.

As we sit here today as MHAs in this House of Assembly, well, they are the next level down, but they are there on a daily basis, on an hourly basis, in regard to their municipalities, addressing all the issues and needs of their citizens, trying to bring their services and the best services they possibly can to the people who live in their communities. I commend them for that, Mr. Speaker, because they are certainly an important part of our government structure in Newfoundland and Labrador, as they are throughout this great country of ours called Canada.

This will actually help them, as I understand it. I have met with Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador on a number of occasions. I find the executive team there really good to work with. They are very supportive, I must say, of this government, as was shown out in Fogo not so long ago in regard to the amalgamation of all the communities out on Fogo Island into one municipality. They have supported that. They have actually helped in the process. They have actually advised the municipal leaders on the Island and the particular communities in regard to that process. They are a very welcome and important part of my department with regard to the good things that we try to do as a Government of Newfoundland and Labrador – to provide municipalities not only with governance and guidance but also with some tools to carry out their work.

The amendments were identified as I referenced the resolutions that were put forward at MNL but they also were subject to an internal review in my department. Then we consulted again with the Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador and also the Professional Municipal Administrators to make sure that if we were to bring these amendments forward that we fully understood why they were needed; the structure and the amendment in particular would have to address the needs that were being asked for by the municipalities and MNL at the time.

With that, Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments will not provide municipalities the authority over matters which are already subject to municipal governance. I want to be clear on that too. It does not give them any authority over those matters; it just adjusts certain amendments to the Municipalities Act where they can actually address certain items and issues and challenges that they have in regard to their everyday operation. These amendments are also consistent to the trends right across Canada and other municipal legislation found in other provinces.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to go down through some of the proposed amendments and what they mean to the act itself. I am sure that there other speakers will get up in this hon. House today and probably even further expand on the definitions and the information that I will give at this particular time.

I will be forthcoming in that previous to this life as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and an MHA for the District of Gander that I had no real municipal background. We have a number of our sitting members here today who have had quite an extensive background in municipal life and municipal legislation and they know and came from that background. With that, they actually provide me as the Minister of Municipal Affairs, a fair bit of advice in regard to the learning curve that I had to go through once I was assigned the Department of Municipal Affairs.

I also have to say, before I get into the amendments themselves and what they mean, that I have thoroughly enjoyed the first four or five months. I cannot remember exactly how long I have been, but I think it was somewhere in October that I got assigned the Department of Municipal Affairs and I have thoroughly enjoyed the department. It is very dynamic, it is very interesting, it is a very fast-paced department, and it certainly interacts with all of the municipalities, all of the mayors, councillors, right across Newfoundland and Labrador, including their administrators.

We have done a fair bit of travel since January 1 across this Province into the various regions, meeting with councils, meeting with fire departments, and meeting with all of the stakeholders in regard to municipal infrastructure and municipal governance. It is something that I am keenly interested in. I think, in my own mind anyway, really, when it comes down to departments, I guess, I consider Municipal Affairs as one of the most important departments here because it certainly touches the lives of each and every citizen on a daily basis because it is what it is.

We provide the tools, we provide municipal capital works, and we provide funding for infrastructure, water, waste water, the paving of municipal roads to those particular municipalities. We would love to have a budget big enough that we could take care of all of their needs, but, in the meantime, each and every one of those mayors and councillors are driven by budgets as well. They have addressed their issues in the confines of the budget and their revenue streams that they find themselves in, and they have to govern themselves accordingly to address those needs.

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed, and I am sure I will continue to enjoy for the period of time that I will be in Municipal Affairs, as the Minister Responsible, I will enjoy it; I know I will because each and every morning I get up I cannot wait to get to work because each and every day is a different day. I am addressing the different needs that municipalities bring forward. I certainly go home at night with a sense of accomplishment, especially if I have actually solved an issue or funded an issue for any municipality in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The legislative changes that we have before us today: the first one that I would like to address is the pension and group benefits which are clauses 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the bill. The bill will remain the Municipalities Act, 1999, in that councils now will be given the discretionary authority to establish pension and group benefits for councillors. Up to this particular time they have not been able to do that. We have, and I have seen in my travels since early January, councillors who have been elected as councillors in particular municipalities for ten, fifteen, twenty years. I think, in my mind anyway that if they have the financial means to do so, I think that consideration should be given for those particular councillors or any councillor for that matter to avail of a benefit such as pension or a group benefit for councillors.

Right now, I think they have the authority to pay an honorarium to a particular council. I know that some do not pay that because they do not have the financial means to do so – their revenue streams are low, they have only a certain amount of opportunity to create new revenue streams, be it property tax, poll tax, water tax or something of that sort. They are limited in regard to what they do.

I also want to make sure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and my hon. colleagues here in the House understand that the way this works is that under the Municipalities Act, that they will only be able to spend a certain percentage of their budget in regard to remuneration, or in this case a percentage in regard to what can be paid out for the pay for a pension or a group benefit for a councillor. The way this works is that the larger the budget, the smaller the percentage. In other words, if you have a revenue stream – and I will just take numbers off the top of my head, Mr. Speaker, because I do not have them here in front of me – let us say you have a revenue stream of maybe $30,000 to $85,000, or $90,000 in regard to revenue stream, which would really dictate that is a small municipality that we are talking about, their percentage would be let us say 5 per cent. If you had a revenue stream of maybe $500,000 to $1 million, then that percentage would be down around 2 per cent that they could actually spend on those kinds of things. That is the way it is set up, it works well and has worked well in regard to the remuneration process, and I am sure that it will work well in regard to the pension and group benefits.

This was put forward, as I said, as a resolution by MNL or by municipalities attending the MNL AGM. I certainly think it should be there because these people give of their lives, really, at no cost to the people that they serve. They might get a stipend of some sort, but I am sure that stipend does not compensate them for all of the work that they perform on a daily basis and all the complaints that they have to address on a daily basis. Really, I do not think they are any different than us. We very rarely hear compliments; we always hear about issues and that kind of thing. That is the nature of the beast and we accept that when we go door to door to get ourselves elected.

I think that the council should be able to consider this, and certainly this amendment to the act will give them the authority to considerate it. That is not saying they have to do it; I want to be clear on that as well, Mr. Speaker. They do not have to. It just gives them the opportunity to consider it under the act because they cannot consider it now under the act. I think they should have the opportunity to at least consider. They may never do it. They may never afford or deem it necessary to consider providing an opportunity for a pension or a group benefit under the act, but at least they have the authority to at least consider it.

The second one I want to speak about is clause 13 of the bill which is the grant for charitable causes. Right now, they have no opportunity to participate in charitable causes. The most recent disaster in this world was the disaster in Japan in regard to the tsunami only a couple of weeks or so ago. Municipalities that have the financial whereabouts and have the financial surplus that they are addressing all the needs that they need to address in regard to their municipality might like to take the opportunity to make some type of a contribution to that particular disaster. It could be something in Newfoundland and Labrador that they might want to participate in. It might be a not-for-profit group that does great work in their community, but they cannot make a charitable donation at this point in time under the act.

So with this, given that they have two-thirds of the councillors in the office thus giving consensus, they now can consider making those types of contributions to worthwhile causes that they see before them as a council. I think as well that most of the municipal MHAs, the people who have had municipal experience in this House, would agree with that, that they should be given that authority because the simple reason is that they are elected by the people to serve the people of that particular municipality. Being elected people, in their own right, they should be given that right as well under the act.

I want to be clear, too, in regard to the charitable and also the consideration of giving such a grant that excluded from that are candidates for federal, provincial, or municipal elections. To be clear on that, they cannot contribute to anybody's campaign within the municipality that they want to consider. There might be some people in the House that were considering, as I was speaking, going out and looking for a donation, but they will be excluded. I think they should be excluded from gaining any type of a grant in regard to their election process because the people of a particular municipality should not be paying in that regard.

The next one, Mr. Speaker, is the minimum property tax, which is clause 14 and clause 33 of the bill. This particular amendment is in response to a decision by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, the one that is listed as Pelley versus the Town of Springdale. Particularly, what that ruling addressed was the issuing of tax on vacant land and land that may be occupied by a structure, not a residential structure but a structure such as a shed or a stage or whatever it may be. That was in 1999. What this act will do is it will allow a municipality to impose a separate minimum real property tax for vacant land and for land on which there is a building used for residential purposes that exceeds the specified square meterage. Minimum property tax right now, there are two opportunities to levy a minimum property tax: one is a commercial and the other is a residential. This would create the opportunity for municipalities to have two more, one for vacant land and the fourth for small structures that are non-residential structures. I want to be clear with that: They are non-residential structures.

By doing that, Mr. Speaker, it actually gives the municipality to tool to ease the tax burden upon an owner. Right now, under the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Pelley versus Springdale, it was deemed necessary to levy such a tax, that vacant land and lands with such structures onto them had now to be taxed. So, within the municipalities' structure, as I said previously, there are only a certain amount of opportunities to create revenue streams. One is property tax, another one is poll tax, and another one is water tax. Under the property tax, there is an opportunity to set minimum taxes. In other words, instead of having a tax and they are all set by mill rates, the mill rate could actually dictate, in regard to the value of a property, that the tax payable on a piece of property including land would be – and I will take an imaginary figure off the top of my head – let's say $25 in regard to that piece of property. Well, then council has the right to levy a minimum tax on that, and that tax could be $300, $400. I think the average over Newfoundland and Labrador is $300.

What I want to do in this amendment is to give the ability to the municipalities to create two new minimum taxes on the vacant land and lands which would have a non-residential structure on it. So in other words, they do not have to go to the minimum tax in regard to the residential structure. I think it would be unfair to the owner that a municipality would be forced under the act to apply a minimum tax on vacant land that might be valued at $1,000, and then have to pay $400 a year in regard to that piece of property. This piece is a very important amendment, not only to the municipalities in the ability to create those revenue streams, to address this ruling by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, but it also gives the opportunity for the municipalities to not place unnecessary tax burdens on its owners. That is what this piece is all about.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other pieces to this act, in regard to amendments to the act. I know there are other members in this hon. House who will address most of those. I will not get into any detail in regard to those. I wanted to address those two particular pieces myself because I think they are the most important two pieces in regard to those amendments.

I believe there are nineteen amendments that are significant in regard to this bill. I welcome any comments by my hon. colleagues across the House, as well as my colleagues on this side of the House, which is important for me to hear as well, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs, because we as a government here from the beginning at 2003, certainly now in 2011, we are a team, we are a team effort. We draw down on each and every one of our expertise. As the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I will be drawing down on the background that some of my MHAs have had in municipal life.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat in the House. I welcome any suggestions, any comments from my hon. colleagues across the House and my hon. colleagues on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will adjourn debate on this particular bill at this time but we will return to it as the afternoon progresses.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, Order 4, Bill 5.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in this hon. House today to bring forth legislation for the protection of children and workers from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. We as a government, Mr. Speaker –

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, would you like to move the bill?

MR. KENNEDY: Sorry, what have I done here?

Okay, I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was so excited to get to the bill that I forgot to follow the proper procedure.

MR. SPEAKER: That is okay.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that Bill 5 be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that Bill 5 – I am sorry, who seconded that bill?

MR. KENNEDY: The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005, now be read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005". (Bill 5)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I will pick up where I left off.

Mr. Speaker, we as a government have heard from many parents, the public and partners on this important public health issue and today we are taking action. I have received, and I can remember, Mr. Speaker, at least two e-mails directed to me on this issue of smoking in cars and people encouraging us to deal with this issue. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the step being taken today, especially smoking in cars with children, is another vital step taken by our government to ensure we further protect our children and residents from exposure to second-hand smoke.

Mr. Speaker, there have been many aspects and initiatives brought forward by this government to reduce tobacco consumption and exposure to second-hand smoke. A key component of the Provincial Wellness Plan focuses on preventing and reducing tobacco use throughout the Province. In 1994, the Smoke-Free Environment Act was brought into force with the goal of reducing exposure that people have to environmental tobacco smoke. Significant restrictions were introduced on the use of tobacco in workplaces and enclosed public places, including banning smoking in child care centres, schools, hospitals, taxis, buses and recreational facilities. In 2002 and 2005, Mr. Speaker, further amendments to this legislation saw smoking banned in restaurants, bars, decks and bingo halls. Further to this, Mr. Speaker, on January 1, 2010, amendments to the Tobacco Control Act came into effect that restricted how tobacco can be displayed and promoted in retail stores.

Today, we are tabling legislation that will enhance government's tobacco control initiatives by preventing exposure to second-hand smoke and helping to reduce smoking incidents. We recognize the harm associated with second-hand smoke and our goal is to specifically reduce children's exposure, thereby contributing to children having the best possible start to a healthy life. This legislation, which will come into effect on July 1, 2011, will enact the provincial ban of smoking in cars when children under the age of sixteen are present as well as the elimination of designated smoking rooms in workplaces.

According to a 2008-2009 youth smoking survey, 35 per cent of students from Grades 6 to 12 reported being exposed to second-hand smoke in cars. We know, Mr. Speaker, that there is no risk-free level of second-hand smoke exposure, especially for children. According to a 2008 study, second-hand smoke from one cigarette smoked in a car exceeds the levels found in a smoky bar. Exposure to tobacco smoke is a serious public health issue. Children exposed to second-hand smoke are more likely to suffer health problems such as asthma, bronchitis, and middle ear infections, and cancer and heart disease later in life.

This legislation, Mr. Speaker, is in keeping with other jurisdictions across the country and in keeping with our own policies to encourage and create a healthy, smoke-free Province. Currently, Mr. Speaker, eight provinces have already enacted similar laws to ban smoking in cars with children, and I am proud to say that we are following suit.

The other aspect of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, which I will go through in a second, is to ban designated smoking rooms in workplaces. This is another key component to tobacco reduction and limiting second-hand smoke exposure. Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, is currently the only Province that continues to allow these rooms in the workplace. Although businesses that have chosen to offer designated smoking rooms have complied with previous legislation to ventilate workplace smoking rooms, there are no ventilation systems that prevent 100 per cent leakage of second-hand smoke. It is this government's intent that these new laws will further limit exposure to second-hand smoke in most areas of our lives and it will support the creation of smoke-free environments, which can lead to individuals and employees reducing or quitting smoking. The direct and indirect cost of smoking on the health care system, just in Newfoundland and Labrador, are in the several hundreds of millions of dollars each year. These costs are incurred due to illness, loss of productivity, and premature death.

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity this year as the co-chair of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers, along with the Health Minister for Canada, to travel to the World Health Organization meetings in Geneva this year. I was quite surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the World Health Organization identified two of the biggest costs to our health care system – although I do not know why I was surprised, but I was – on a worldwide basis, being alcohol and tobacco. Tobacco use, obviously, contributes to many aspects of our health and wellness, and to disease.

Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do is encourage people to look at their smoking habits, to enforce rules in relation to their smoking habits, and to specifically not expose our children to that second-hand smoke in a confined space such as an automobile.

Mr. Speaker, through our legislative and educational programs and campaigns, we have seen a promising reduction in tobacco use in this Province, especially in our youth. The percentage of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians aged fifteen years and older who currently smoke has reduced to 21 per cent, down from 28 per cent in 1999. I can only wonder, Mr. Speaker, what that number – and I am sure I could find it – would have been a decade before that, and a decade before that. What we see, Mr. Speaker, with behaviours is that they change over time. What was acceptable two decades ago may not be acceptable today.

Oftentimes, Mr. Speaker, it starts with our children. That is why I believe that the earlier we expose our children to educational programs on the use of alcohol, tobacco, drugs, the better it is. Our children, Mr. Speaker, recognize for themselves, come home to their parents and say that is not good for you. Children today, Mr. Speaker, are much more cognizant of the need to eat healthy, the need to exercise and we all hear of the situations that relate to obesity and the prevalence of childhood obesity in this country.

Mr. Speaker, health is not simply about treating the disease; health is also about looking after yourself, taking responsibility for your own health and taking a preventative approach. Again, Mr. Speaker, smoking, or reducing smoking, educational programs meant, or directed towards reducing smoking are programs that in the long run will benefit us, Mr. Speaker. The cost to our health care system of the types of issues I am talking about today is enormous. Mr. Speaker, you do not judge someone who comes to your health care system with a disease and say, well, you should not have smoked thirty years ago, or you should not have drank thirty years ago. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have to deal with it as it exists.

If we get the message out to our children especially, to our parents, that behaviours that were acceptable a decade or two decades ago may not be the best ones to adopt today, I am suggesting to you that we can have an impact.

This not smoking in cars, Mr. Speaker, with children – although you would think it would be common sense – obviously, is something that we feel, as a government, by bringing it into legislation we are sending a very strong message to our citizens.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we are seeing this in the rest of the country. The youth smoking rate, Mr. Speaker – I just talked about the 21 per cent down from 28 per cent – the youth smoking rate between the ages of fifteen and nineteen has been nearly cut in half, down to 16 per cent. Mr. Speaker, we still have our children who smoke and we still have people who try it, but it is very positive to see the rate reduced.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I met with the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco and had some real good discussions with them. Mr. Speaker, they are made up of various groups who are interested in controlling tobacco use. During the last of the cancer control strategy, the provincial government provided the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco with an additional $50,000 to develop an online social media campaign to focus on tobacco prevention and cessation, targeted at youth and young adults in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we want to talk to our young people in the language that they understand. Oftentimes, Mr. Speaker, our youth today communicate through social media. Obviously, with an election campaign coming up, I expect that a lot more of us in this House of Assembly will be using social media to communicate, whether it be through Twitter, through Facebook, through other online media. A good way to get the message out, Mr. Speaker, is through these various social media programs.

I think, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we are going to see, and we are starting to see in our Province and in our country, is the use of these electronic media – of the Internet, of things like Facebook – to get a message across. I do not use Facebook a lot, Mr. Speaker, but it is quite amazing to me when you go in and all of a sudden you see a message from someone who you had not heard from or did not know about for thirty years, and all of a sudden you can pick up immediately what is going on.

I know during that meeting with the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco, they talked about using Facebook to get the message out to the youth. Also, Mr. Speaker, getting the messages out by traditional methods, if I can use that, such as posters and educational programs. One that comes to mind, Mr. Speaker, I know that has been very effective – at least my children went through and I know a lot of people here – would have been the DARE program that is put on by the various police forces – I think both the RNC and the RCMP have it. I think it is drugs, awareness, recognition – I forget the actual terminology. The police officer goes into the classroom; it is around Grade 4 or 5, I think, talks to the children about the types of –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) DARE program.

MR. KENNEDY: DARE, yes, what does it stand for?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do not dare smoke.

MR. KENNEDY: Anyway, so they go in, Mr. Speaker, and they talk about the use of drugs out there in our society, they talk about tobacco I am pretty-well certain. I can remember the children get a T-shirt at the end of it all. By educating our children early on, we are allowing them, as they get older, to have the information they need to make their own decisions.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, tobacco is like many other substances, there is a certain element of peer pressure, there is a certain element of experimentation, I would suggest. What we are trying to do, and what we are suggesting, at least, is by engaging in education and awareness programs, we can provide the information required to our children, especially, but also to their parents, to say that this may not be in the best interests of my child.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have brought in this piece of legislation, and I will go through the proposed amendments now very quickly. The first amendment to section 2 of the Smoke-free Environment Act, 2005, we have to add the definition of motor vehicle.

Now, Mr. Speaker, and I see the Opposition House Leader is – excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I have not had a chance to discuss this with him – but one of the issues on the Highway Traffic Act and the definition of motor vehicle, you will get some lawyer who would think he or she is very smart, and all of a sudden someone gets charged with smoking in a car, and no one has defined what a car or a motor vehicle is. So, all we are doing here is a motor vehicle is that as defined in the Highway Traffic Act.

Now, Mr. Speaker, over the years, or twenty years as a lawyer I saw many types of arguments presented on what is a motor vehicle, what is not a motor vehicle, if a car is in motion, if it is not in motion, when does it meet the definition. So all we are doing is being careful. When you draft legislation, Mr. Speaker, you just have to be careful.

Now, section 5.(1) of the act is repealed and we are now going to deal with the smoking in workplaces. So notwithstanding 4.(1)(a), a workplace that is a remote worksite, as designated by the regulations, an underground mining operation, or a marine installation or structure, an employer may, in accordance with the regulations, designate one or more enclosed rooms that are under the employers control as designated smoke rooms.

So, Mr. Speaker, the section itself will eliminate designated smoking rooms in most workplaces. We are the, as I indicated earlier, the only Province that continues to allow these rooms in any workplace. Although businesses, some of them have offered these designated smoking rooms, you cannot prevent totally against the leakage of second hand smoke. The exemptions here, Mr. Speaker, will be, as I have indicated, in remote worksites, underground mining operations, and a marine installation or structure as defined in the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act. These examples, Mr. Speaker, would include ships, offshore drilling units, production platforms, subsea installations, pumping stations, living accommodations, storage structures, loading or landing platforms.

Mr. Speaker, further consultation would be required with these industries before enacting a ban, given the uniqueness of the industry, on factory-freezer trawlers or offshore oil installations. For safety reasons, Mr. Speaker, remote sites, generally, do not let workers leave the worksites for breaks; and, in cases such as underground mining, it is not feasible. Other jurisdictions include these types of exemptions. Manitoba exempts underground mines; North West Territories, worksites that accommodate employees.

Mr. Speaker, then we get to section 6.1, "A person shall not dive or have the care or control of a motor vehicle, whether it is in motion or not, (a) while there is a person smoking in the motor vehicle; and (b) that motor vehicle is occupied by a person under 16 years of age, whether not a window, sunroof, car-top, door or other feature of the motor vehicle is open."

Mr. Speaker, the intent of this section is to ban smoking in vehicles with children. So, you can be parked in your parking lot, it is not simply that you cannot drive down the road and have a smoke with children in the car, but you cannot park in your parking lot and have a smoke with a child in the car.

As I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, one would think that this section would be a very practical, common sense behaviour that people would engage in; however, as I have indicated, I remember at least two e-mails in the last six months and they were very upset that they had passed by vehicles with people smoking with children in the cars.

Mr. Speaker, the driver, as the person in care or control of the motor vehicle, would be responsible and fined in the event of a violation. Car and control of the motor vehicle, Mr. Speaker, is the same language that is utilized in the Criminal Code. Whether it is in motion or not, again, the intent of the legislation is to ban smoking in enclosed space where children are located. This new law will be enforced - that would be in a motor vehicle as defined by the act - by local law enforcement agencies by using public education and summary offence tickets. Section 10, Mr. Speaker, of the Smoke-Free Environment Act, which deals with offences under this act, would apply. A person found guilty would be subject to a fine of not less than $50, not more than $500.

Now, Mr. Speaker, one could argue here: Well, it is not much punishment if you are going to go ahead and do it, so therefore it should be a disincentive; or, what difference will it make if people are going to break the law? What we are saying to people, Mr. Speaker, is that this is not responsible. Not only is it now illegal, but it is not a kind of behaviour you should be engaging in. So, the intent is not to fine people to the extent that it makes it an offence to the point where someone will say: I cannot do this because I will get a $10,000 fine.

The amount of the fine here, Mr. Speaker, is meant not to represent the seriousness of the infraction, but to simply say that there is a fine associated with it. The seriousness of the infraction, Mr. Speaker, will be emphasized by the police officer when he or she hauls over that vehicle and says: You are smoking in a car with a youth under sixteen. Now, Mr. Speaker, sixteen was an issue as to what age we should use, and I will come to that in a second as to how we came up with the age of sixteen.

Mr. Speaker, section 8.1 says that the section shall be enforced by police officers, and " (2) For the purpose of ensuring compliance with section 6.1, a police officer may require the driver of a motor vehicle to stop. (3) The driver of a motor vehicle, when signalled or requested to stop by a police officer, shall immediately come to a safe stop."

Mr. Speaker, I do know that last year – I am trying to remember now – we had some debate in this hon. House last spring as to the section of the Highway Traffic Act and we gave certain powers to police officers to engage in warrantless searches. Generally, Mr. Speaker, again, I am going by recollection now, but a police officer or a peace officer can ask a vehicle to stop to check licence, registration, and insurance. Many cases over the years have gone to the Supreme Court of Canada on this issue of whether or not there was what we refer in law as articulable cause. Was there a reason to stop the vehicle? Were there reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence had been committed?

So, Mr. Speaker, what happened over the years is we saw it get to the point where the courts were saying drinking and driving is such a serious societal problem that police officers have to be able to stop vehicles, and then they have to be able to utilize their powers to check to see, one, if an individual is drinking or driving, or if there is another offence being committed. I can remember, Mr. Speaker, many cases where – I am trying to remember the names of some of them now – individuals had been acquitted because there was no cause. A police officer, on a hunch or on a suspicion, had stopped a vehicle, and the hunch or suspicion was proven to be right. Of course, the debate that the court engaged in at that time: Is it enough to interfere with a person's rights or liberties based on a hunch or a suspicion? That debate went on in the law, Mr. Speaker, for numerous years, and had gone to the Supreme Court of Canada on numerous occasions.

Last year, we brought in the legislation, the amendments to the Highway Traffic Act, to allow our police officers the power to do their job. Again, I am not going to complicate this too much today, Mr. Speaker, but you can have the conflict in federal jurisdiction in terms of the enforcement of criminal law versus the administration of justice in the Province under the Constitution Act, section 91.(27) versus 92.(14).

As a Province, we could regulate our provincial statutes and we can ensure that someone who has a licence – because remember, Mr. Speaker, it is a licence to do something. So, we can take that licence away. You cannot do it again; you have to do it within certain parameters. We brought in provincial legislation to allow police officers to search. As long as that is not an infringement on criminal law, then it is valid legislation or intravarious parliament - or, excuse me, the provincial Legislature.

Again, in this particular clause, Mr. Speaker, we have to make sure that the vehicle can stop, or that the police officer has the power to stop the vehicle. If the police officer is going up the street and he or she sees someone smoking a cigarette in a car with someone who is clearly under the age of sixteen, how does he or she stop that person? There has to be a power to stop the person. So what we felt, as opposed to whether or not there is a common law authority, or whether or not there is authority in the amendments we brought in last week that we simply say you can stop this vehicle on the basis that the person who is smoking in that – if you have reasonable grounds to believe that the person smoking a cigarette is in a car with a person under the age of sixteen, then you can stop that vehicle.

Again, Mr. Speaker, it may seem to the average person out there rather redundant and unnecessary, but this is the way that the law has to work if you are going to infringe or potentially infringe upon individual rights. Again, one would think it is common sense.

The other side of it, Mr. Speaker, is: What about the police officer, who hauls in the vehicle, stops the vehicle and the person in there is eighteen and only looks to be twelve, or thirteen or fourteen? Then, we do not want the police officer to be subject to liability because he or she, upon reasonable grounds, felt that there was an offence being committed. That is the purpose of that section, Mr. Speaker.

Then, there is a clear direction that the person who is driving the motor vehicle has to stop. Again, we do not want something that starts out as smoking in a vehicle escalating to a car chase because the individual says: Well, I do not have to stop; they have no authority to stop me.

Then you come to the section I just talked about, "At a trial to determine whether a contravention of section 6.1 has occurred, a court may find evidence that the police officer enforcing the section honestly and reasonably believed a person present in the motor vehicle to be under 16 years of age to be sufficient proof of the person's age, unless the accused shows on a balance of probabilities that the person was, at the time of the offence, 16 years of age or more."

Mr. Speaker, maybe I have not been away from the law long enough but I can tell you that there are hours of discussion built into that section in terms of the legal principles and what we are doing here. Quite simply, all we are trying to do is say look, the police officer did what he or she thought was right. They honestly thought that the person in the vehicle was under the age of sixteen. That can be sufficient proof of the person's age. Do we get into the situation where people have to bring birth certificates, you have to check IDs, or do you simply say: look, apply some common sense here. What happens, from an interesting perspective, Mr. Speaker, is we are shifting the onus of proof. This is what we refer to in law as a strict liability offence. A strict liability offence is one where the Crown simply has to show that an act occurred. That is unlike criminal law where you not only have to show that an act occurred, Mr. Speaker, but you also have to show that the person had the requisite state of mind.

In order for a person to be found guilty in our criminal law, there must be both the state of mind and the act; the mens rea and the actus reus. The Supreme Court of Canada held in a number of cases - R. v. Sault Ste. Marie, close to thirty years ago now, that certain regulatory offences, we cannot impose upon proof of those offences the same kind of strict requirements in criminal law where a person's liberty is at stake. Oftentimes, regulatory offences are brought in by a province to deal with issues such as licensing or they can be brought in by the federal government, for example, the Fisheries Act. Essentially, the police officer brings someone in and says: I honestly believe that person to be under sixteen. That is sufficient proof of the person's age.

Mr. Speaker, you cannot simply allow a police officer to come in and you have an individual in there sitting in the driver's seat with a beard and the officer says well, I thought the person was under fifteen. Maybe they could have made that mistake but the accused person, Mr. Speaker, shows on a balance of probabilities that at the time they were sixteen years or more. How do you do that? Very simple, here is my client's son's birth certificate; here is my son's friend's birth certificate. Again, in law, an offence like this, a strict liability offence you can show that the individual took all the due diligence. I guess the point we are trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that we do not want the police or everyone to get tangled up here in simply prosecuting people for the sake of prosecuting. The intent of the Legislature, which is what we are trying to incorporate into legislation, is to prevent the exposure of children under the age of sixteen to second-hand smoke.

Mr. Speaker, the age of sixteen was one that, how did we come up with that age? We looked around the country and we tried to determine what ages were being used in other provinces. Before I get to that though, in November, 2007 - some people might remember this, Mr. Speaker, but in November, 2007, Wolfville, Nova Scotia became the first municipality in Canada to ban smoking in cars when children are present. Since that time, eight provinces and territories, including Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Yukon, British Columbia, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have passed legislation banning smoking in vehicles carrying children. All of these bans, obviously, are relatively new and there are no significant issues being reported at this point in relation to enforcement and implementation.

Now, in terms of the age, Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have banned smoking in cars with youth under age nineteen. The Yukon chose eighteen years to be consistent with their tobacco control legislation. Mr. Speaker, the other provinces, and I just want to show there is no magic here in the number, but what other provinces did, in Manitoba you have to be sixteen to have a driver's licence; to have access to tobacco you are eighteen. Saskatchewan, sixteen for a driver's licence, Yukon fifteen for a driver's licence - I did not know that - BC, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, sixteen for driver's licences.

What we chose, Mr. Speaker, as opposed to the age requirement for youth access to tobacco, which is generally eighteen or nineteen, we did what the other provinces did and we looked at the age of driving a vehicle. Mr. Speaker, there is no great science to it. Some could argue we are wrong on this but, again, with the intent of the legislation to ban smoking in cars where children are exposed to it, we chose the age of sixteen.

Mr. Speaker, the other section of the act which we have amended, Section 11 "is amended by adding immediately after paragraph (b) the following: (b.1) designating a worksite as a remote worksite for the purpose of subsection 5(1)". The act itself will come into force on July 1, 2011.

Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, and I am sure there are members of this hon. House, this is a piece of legislation that has been discussed for quite some time. It is a piece of legislation that has been advocated strongly for by some people in our society. What we are trying to do here, Mr. Speaker, is strike the required balance. I am just getting my procedure down again, Mr. Speaker, to make sure I have it correct.

So, Mr. Speaker, those would be my comments in bringing forward this piece of legislation. I would suggest it is a very good piece of legislation and one that I am hoping all hon. members of this House will support.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the time being, we will adjourn debate on this particular bill, and I would like to return to the debate on Bill 7.

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a privilege to be able to stand for a few minutes and talk about Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999, and a more significant change I would suggest than the bill we debated just a short time ago.

Basically, because I am the only one who will speak from the Official Opposition, I would really like to identify each section that is going to be changed and just at least identify how we understand the changes that are in that section. If we are not correct, then the minister can correct me when he comes to speak to the bill again. I realize there will be other members of government speaking to it as well. I would like to just highlight what we understand the changes to be. It was only this morning we had a briefing on this bill, and to read it and try to digest it and prepare it for the House here this afternoon. The minister already mentioned that one of the more significant changes is the fact that this allows municipalities to provide pensions and group insurance to their councillors and I will elaborate on that a little more when I get to that section. We believe it is an important and significant one.

It allows municipalities as well to provide grants for charitable causes not including, of course, political parties and candidates and so on but reputable charitable organizations and causes; allows municipalities to grant to them for their purposes. It allows municipalities, when selling tax property, to relieve the new property owner against liens and other judgements and that is significant. Municipalities can impose a real property tax on vacant land and small structures. These are more or less the significant pieces, but I do want to walk through each section because, as I said, I am the only one who will speak to it from the Official Opposition; I just want to make sure that I understand the changes as they have been proposed to us.

Section 1 is basically a housekeeping clause: the issue of equipment as real property. It was really resolved some time ago and it was excluded; an assessment was done just on the building but the wording was different in the Assessment Act and in the Municipalities Act. This is not changing the basis of any taxation as we understand it; it is just creating consistency between the two acts. It is not a big section but again something that is being done and a change that is noted.

Section 1.(2) relates to sections four and five of the bill essentially. This is one of the bigger ones where current councils can provide pensions for employees but not for councillors. Of course, the City of St. John's can because it is governed by its own act and so on. There are currently restrictions in the act which limit the amount of remuneration; based on the size of the town budgets and any pension plan would have to be abide by these existing limitations. That is our understanding. This section is not changing the amount allocated as a percentage of the municipal budget – they still have to abide by that formula – but it does allow them to provide pension and group benefits to their councillors. I would suspect if this came forward from the Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, it certainly would be seen as something that can be used as an incentive to attract interest in terms of councillors.

We realize that many of the councillors today, upwards of 75 per cent, receive no remuneration at all. In other words, it is one of those thankless jobs that volunteers so willingly do in our Province. This is basically an arrangement whereby there are guidelines that allow the municipality to do something that can attract councillors. Some councillors are long-time serving councillors. It is not unlikely to find a councillor, especially in smaller communities, I would think, that may have been serving on council for twenty years or so. So, certainly for the municipality to be able to do something, I think, is a good thing.

So, the councils that can afford to do this will, of course. There is a still an issue that other councils can not afford to do it. Some of these changes, while they are putting extra financial requirements upon the municipalities – it is interesting and important, I believe, for the minister and for the government to note that some municipalities can take advantage of this while others possibly cannot because of their financial and fiscal restraints.

Section 2 is another housekeeping amendment. It gives a broad authority to councils to appoint whatever department heads they feel they need; designed to address whatever works, basically, for each town. The history of the Municipalities Act, going back to 1979, stated that the municipalities must have certain heads and they have to give them very specific job descriptions and functions. This was gotten rid of in the late 90s, and now it goes even further. There is, kind of, no finite list, if you will. Towns can appoint any potential job holders. So it really allows them to organize themselves in the way that they see best. It is a realization that one model, one hat does not fit all; one size does not fit all. It allows them, in the spirit of regulatory reform, and provides municipalities more flexibility and autonomy in terms of what they want to do. So, certainly, those changes are good.

In section 6, municipalities – and this is an interesting change as well – municipalities have always had to balance their budget. There has never been able to be a surplus, and certainly never able to be a deficit. Even though we know municipalities with running deficits and so on, yet, when it came to budgeting it was always a balanced budget that had to be presented to the department and to government for approval and for funding. Well this section now, in this change, allows them to budget for surplus. Now, I am not sure how many municipalities out there are going to be budgeting surpluses, but nevertheless, if there is one that is prosperous enough and fortunate enough to be able to recognize and really suspect that they will have a surplus in this coming year, then this will allow them to do it.

Essentially, what that means is that it encourages long-term planning; that they can run surplus funds to help pay down long-term debt, whatever the case might be. It is basically a fiscal planning tool. If expenditures drop in the municipality and the incomes stay up, then that allows them to realize a surplus and allows them to deal with the longer term issues and so that is important.

Section 7 removes the need for ministerial approval for surpluses in municipal budgeting. This ties in to section 6. Then we go to section 8, there are some changes there as well. This is from an accounting perspective. Basically there is a requirement that is put in here that all municipalities become compliant to the Public Service Accounting Board of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. This came in as part of the gas tax funding requirements to bring everyone in-line so that they were compliant, they were meeting regulations and really that things were in place. Up to now it was only a policy requirement and when this act passes it is going to become a legislative requirement, so municipalities will have no choice but to ensure that they are in compliance with the legislation.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this could certainly be a concern for smaller municipalities that do not have the resources or the capabilities to follow this guideline. Now that they will be in place, obviously the municipalities will want to follow the guidelines, they will want to be compliant, and they will need to be compliant. I would suggest that training in these accounting principles will be very important. We know that they have been on the go for the past three or four years, and I am sure many of the larger municipalities – many of the more stable municipalities, financially, if you want to call it that – have been doing well with their training, getting their processes in-line and getting the assistance in place. I am sure there will still be many municipalities that will have trouble keeping up with this, so we cannot lose sight of that fact. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that it is one thing to bring this legislation in, but once it is brought in, as we prepare for the legislation to pass through the House of Assembly, that we ensure that the training requirements that will allow for a smooth transition are in place for this particular piece.

Section 10 requires the auditor to provide an opinion on whether or not municipalities have adequate insurance protection, or if any at all.

We have seen situations in the Province where there have been disasters, and we realize not that long ago, I guess a year ago or whenever it was, that the Baie Verte fire hall burned and there wasn't adequate protection to cover the losses and so on. This will be an information gathering tool for the Province, for the government to paint a picture of the deficiencies that are out there in terms of municipal insurance coverages. We do know that a lot of municipalities do not carry insurance coverage, or certainly adequate coverage. I believe that having the opinion of the auditor each year as to where coverages are in different municipalities will certainly be good information so that we know what the uninsured liability potentially would be across the Province.

Section 11; currently, municipalities need approval of the minister to borrow money for capital expenses. For example, if they were going to buy a fire truck they would have to get approval from the minister, I believe would be correct, in the department. Of course, municipalities have found ways around things, like we all find ways around things. One of the ways they were able to do that was to enter into a lease agreement with one of the auto manufacturers or leasing companies and in that way circumvent the approval of the minister. This new section now requires any lease over three years, and certainly when it comes to fire truckers and larger vehicles within municipalities we can be sure that it would be over three years. Any lease over three years will again require ministerial approval. We do not see any problem with that, other than the fact that as long as we are putting another piece of red tape in the process, being certain that it can be dealt with appropriately and expediently and that the process does not delay the municipality or cripple them in terms of waiting for their particular approval.

Section 14; currently, municipalities can only tax commercial and residential properties. The minister spoke to this one in his speech on the bill and I want to make sure that I understand exactly what he said and how this bill should be interpreted. Basically, what we have now is commercial tax and residential property tax within a municipality and what this section is allowing is two separate tax rates - if I understand it correctly - to be applied; number one, to vacant land, and number two, to land with small structures. There is no real definition around those small structures so to speak. The example that can be used is a fisherman's storage shed, there is a small piece of land within the municipality and he uses it for keeping some of his gear, fishing equipment and so on in it. Based on the assessment, no towns can impose a minimum property tax on lands and on small structures. Well, that is about to change under this bill. Each municipality will have their own discretion to impose this new tax on real property. Again, it gives the town an additional tax authority. Again, something that I am sure MNL has been advocating for and a change that they will see as a positive thing as it goes through the House of Assembly.

Section 17; also, Mr. Speaker, currently municipalities can sue delinquent taxpayers and collect within a limited venue. For example, my understanding is it is basically civil court or civil action in court. With this change in section 17, now they can employ less expensive means of collecting their tax arrears. One of the more obvious ones would be the ability to send their delinquent tax accounts to a collection agency. They have never had the right to do that before and this legislation allows for that change. It allows them now not only to use the civil court in terms of a means of collecting funds but also to use outside agencies, such as collection agencies that do this every day and do it well and so on for a fee, obviously. Municipalities will be able to avail of their services to help them with the collection of arrears in their taxation base. Basically, what that does is it broadens the options for municipalities and it helps cut down the cost of collecting taxes that are in arrears.

Section 18; this section adds interest owing on overdue property taxes. Previously, if a municipality had a lien on a property they could not collect the interest on those taxes. Again, it is my understanding, and this change allows that to take place.

Then we go to sections 19 and 20 to 23, Mr. Speaker. This is called basically an all piece change or legislation. Basically, what it allows municipalities to do is to transfer unencumbered title to a new property owner; whereas, previously, any judgement against a property, any other assessments, any other liens that were on that property, when they transferred title to a new owner these liens and so on transferred as well. This essentially allows the municipalities to use what they call a tax sale tool, if you will, and it really beefs up the town's or the municipality's ability to deal with delinquents in particular, in that is gets the property into the hands of the new owners who pay the taxes but are not encumbered by all of the other liens that might be there. So, it allows the properties to move through the system in a much cleaner fashion and, with the exception of delinquent taxes, for new property owners to be able to take advantage of properties and to buy properties and so on, and really only have to deal with the town in that particular case.

Sections 24 and 25 are just housekeeping amendments that remove the words "this Act" and replaces it with "the Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000". Again, just the department cleaning up its language, cleaning up its act, so to speak, and making it more relevant and friendlier in terms of the language that is being used there.

Section 26, this amended section of the act, section 183, will now permit councils to approve what emergencies the fire department responds to. It removes, again, the authority from the hands of the minister and places it in the hands of the councils, who are the overseeing authority anyway. That makes good sense. Any time that we can decentralize the authority piece, if you will, and give it to the people who do the work everyday, who are on the ground, then all of these things are good things to be done. The council supposedly are the ones who are in position to make this type of judgement. This section basically allows the councils to approve whatever emergencies the fire departments respond to in their particular jurisdictions.

Sections 27 and 28; this amendment just creates a consistency. It is not a big issue, but again, it talks about erecting signs, it talks about mobile vendors and so on, and the fact that they must have approval in writing to be able to do that within the municipalities. It gives them some control on some of the issues that may not seem big, but yet at certain times of the year in certain places it is something that may be a little bit difficult to control and so on. This act and these sections speak to that in particular.

In section 29, the act was previously silent on the disposal of municipal property for the most part. It spoke to the acquisition of property but not to council's rights or responsibilities in terms of disposing of property. This particular part of the act speaks to that. What this section provides is it gives relatively clear guidance so that any property less than $500 is considered a private sale and it does not need an authorization. So, if a town has some small piece of property, whether it is just something they want to dispose of, something has been retired from equipment or whatever the case might be, if it is under $500 it is considered a private sale, does not need authorization, move it through, get it done, and get it out the way so to speak.

Then, of course, if the value is over $500, then there has to be a call to public tenders. That requires certain regulations, that it is posted in at least two places prominently within the municipality, that it is advertised in the local paper, if there is such a thing in the municipality. So, what this does is it provides transparency in the process and in the sale and the disposition of property belonging to the municipalities, and it allows them to do it properly. This section was basically, Mr. Speaker, precipitated by an operational review, and this was seen as an issue where municipalities were not following the due process and protocol in terms of getting rid of and disposing of their properties. Now this section is very clear as to how that will be handled.

Section 30, Mr. Speaker, abolishes squatters' rights when it comes to people occupying land that is owned by a municipality. The Province has enjoyed this protection since 1977, the City of St. John's also has the same protection, and this amendment now affords this protection on all other municipalities across the Province. I am interested in this one because, even though it may seem like a small thing, my understanding is that it was the Town of St. Anthony that brought this amendment forward for consideration. That being the case, I am proud to see that this has been included in this section and that this amendment will go forward, and of course, more than likely will see the approval of the House and will become law in our fair Province in due course.

Section 31 is just another red tape reduction measure as part of the regulatory forum. This amendment gives the minister the authority to issue an order in writing, rather than just providing direction respecting when comptrollers are appointed to administer the financial affairs of any town in the Province.

Section 32 amends a section of the Municipalities Act to make a local service district consistent with towns, as it relates to owning and operating a fire department. Local service districts sometimes struggle to really fulfill their mandate and achieve their purposes and so on within the communities that they are in. So, it is good to see that we are again reviewing and changing legislation so that they are properly represented and so on.

Section 33, allows each town to set regulation on what is considered a small structure when it comes to setting minimum property taxes. Basically, what this section does is allows one town to define what a small structure is compared to what another town would define a small structure to be. So it gives them, again, flexibility, it gives them that leverage within the act to allow towns to make their own interpretation of things and so on. So, you have one town that a small structure may be considered as being this, whereas in another town that may not be considered to be a small structure, it may not be something that is being taxed. I can see where that would rise to a few complaints, possibly, when we look at towns that are close to each other and suddenly one person down the road realizes they have tax bill for a small structure, but the municipality or the local service district or whatever just three, four kilometres down the road or five kilometres, that particular style of building or that size of building is not inclusive of being called a taxable structure, and therefore is exempt.

Again, Mr. Speaker, what we realize is that most of the recommendations in this bill have come from the MNL. They are things that have been requested by the different towns across our Province, and by the association, as they have either advocated for them, some of them have come to resolutions at the AGMs and so on. We know the importance of the AGM for the MNL and other opportunities when they meet and so on. Therefore, I am sure that this will be received well by the organization when they go back to the next AGM and they see things that they have put forth as resolutions and they seem them being passed in the House of Assembly. I am sure it will be encouraging to them to continue to work to reform legislation, to reform processes and so on so that they work appropriately for the communities in which represent.

One thing that should be recognized, though, Mr. Speaker, is that some of the things in this bill may very well lead to extra costs for municipalities in implementing them. That is important, because I know from my district that there are a lot of small towns that have very small budgets. Some do not get any operating grants and so on from the government, so to put in restrictions and requirements, whether it is from an accounting point of view, whether it is just from a regulatory point of view or some other thing, but to put something in place that will cause extra financial burden on them, I think we need to be cognizant of that. I think we need to be aware, and that is indeed the case.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would say more reason for us to realize that we need a new fiscal arrangement with our municipalities, either through new revenues, increase in MOGs, whatever the case might be, but as we put in more restrictions and as we put in more requirements for our municipalities, we also need to make sure that we are putting the funding in place to help them do what it is that we are trying to achieve.

Bill 7, these are some of the comments that I would have on this act, on the amendments and so on. I am pleased to have been able to stand this afternoon and to speak to those items.

Once again, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly a pleasure again to stand and speak for a few moments on Bill 7 this afternoon. This bill amends the Municipalities Act, 1999.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will address a number of legislative amendments to the Municipalities Act. It will support municipalities as they work within the new amended legislation to manage their respective towns. The amendments will modernize legislation; it will strengthen municipal governance and improve operations of municipalities throughout the Province.

While there are a number of clauses in this bill, and the minister earlier spoke to several of them and I am sure he will speak to some more when he closes debate and in Committee, if necessary, the member opposite also spoke to a number of these clauses, I am not going to speak to all of them, but I hope to get to speak to three or four of the specific clauses as time permits this afternoon.

The amendments that we are talking about here were identified mostly following an internal review and also through consultations with MNL, Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, and also with the professional municipal administrators. The changes will respond to the needs of municipalities, some of the changes are substantive; some others do not appear to be as large, if I can use that word, and some are really red tape reduction initiatives. Our government has reduced red tape by about 27 per cent in the last few years and as we continue to change legislation and amend legislation it is our hope and our aim that this will continue to happen.

I want to talk about clauses 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the bill. What it does is it authorizes a municipality to eliminate third party liens. What we mean by that is supposing a land owner or a building owner has a piece of infrastructure in a town and that person is not paying their taxes, they have been delinquent and maybe delinquent over a period of time. The town decides that in order to recoup the taxes that are owed on this piece of property then they are going to basically sell it to get the money that is owed. The problem with that is when a town would do that, if there was some third party lien on the property then when the town got their money in then these other lien holders would have to get their money first. You run into a real problem if a piece of property was worth maybe $10,000 and there was $5,000 taxes owed on it, but then the town, if they went to sell it and if the total outstanding to other lien holders exceeded that amount then you would have a real problem. What this does is it says: okay, the town is going to take the initiative and we are going to actually sell that property to recoup our taxes. Then they are entitled to the money first. Any money that is left over after the sale, then the town would turn it over to the court system, I guess would be the proper (inaudible), and then the other lien holders would make application to the court through that process.

Another clause in the bill, clause 30, which again amends the Municipalities Act, 1999, what it does is it protects municipal real property from claims of adverse possession by a third party who has wrongfully occupied municipal lands. A lot of us can relate to the term Squatters' Rights and how we probably have heard about people, especially when it comes to Crown land, having occupied the land for a number of years, then they were entitled to own it after a period of time through a process called Squatters' Rights. Squatters' Rights legislation was changed, I think, back in the 1970s. In fact, it is much more difficult now to get land through Squatters' Rights. What this does, this protects municipalities so that if somebody, for example, has illegally infringed on some land within a municipality and they have lived on it, maybe occupied it for a number of years, then they cannot go and claim title to that property under Squatters' Rights. They cannot take adverse possession of the land.

Mr. Speaker, clause 26 and clause 32 of the bill talks about a municipality's response to emergencies. I want to dwell on that just for a minute, because prior to these amendments coming in, current practice is that if a municipality is going to determine the types of emergencies that they are going to respond to in terms of their fire department, for example, then they would have to consult with the minister and get permission from the minister. What this does now, that decision can now rest with the municipality. They will ensure that decisions regarding the extent of emergency response coverage are made at the local level and by the people who are most informed of the local circumstance.

I can think of a real advantage here in terms of probably smaller municipalities, in particular, maybe sharing some resources, sharing some ideas. For example, if I look in my district down in Stoneville, Horwood, for example, different sides of the bay, and while I am not familiar with their particular training that each fire department has there now, I can imagine that - let's take, for example, maybe Stoneville, if they had somebody in their department who was specifically trained in water rescue or ice rescue, and maybe had equipment that could respond to that type of emergency rather professionally and effectively, then maybe that department would say: well, any type of water emergency here we will do. Then Horwood across the bay, maybe they have a Jaws of Life or something and they say: well, in this vicinity, if there is a traffic accident and we have people specifically trained in that area, then our people will do that. I can envision from this amendment to the legislation, people putting their heads together and determining what it is exactly that each apartment might do in their local area. I see that as a great thing.

As the member opposite talked about in terms of the disposal of municipal property, which is in clause 29, the current legislation has all kinds of guidelines for how towns can acquire property, but this gives some direction on how to dispose of property. That is a gap that is filled there now.

Clauses 6 and 7 of the bill talk about municipal budgets. Currently, municipalities are not supposed to budget a surplus. What this does is it allows them to budget a surplus in a given year. A municipality, for example, might want to do that for a number of years because they may have some big project in mind, they may have some piece of infrastructure that they want to build, or some equipment that they want to acquire. This now allows a municipality to make that decision. In terms of long-term planning and fiscal prudence, I think they are the right ones to make that decision.

Clause 8 of the bill will amend the municipalities act to require annual financial statements to be consistent with the standards of the Public Sector Accounting Board. It will bring financial reporting by municipalities in line with the national standards for public sector bodies. This will provide consistency across the board.

If we look at clause 9, Mr. Speaker – I just want to touch on clause 9 for a second – it talks about the appointment of an auditor. The notification of the minister with respect to the appointment of an auditor will be no longer required. Right now, if a municipality was going to appoint an auditor, they would have to write and get permission from the minister. My understanding, in a brief conversation with the minister about this, is that was pretty much a formality. It was a procedure that was laid out in the legislation that they had to go through, but it was really a formality. As we might call it, it was really a piece of red tape. By putting this clause in the legislation, we are again reducing some red tape. Municipalities will still be required to provide annual audited financial statements; it is just that they do not have to go through the minister now to appoint an auditor.

There is an interesting clause there in clause 10, Mr. Speaker, it talks about insurance coverage. What is going to happen here is with this being put into the bill an auditor is now required to report on the adequacy of insurance coverage that is carried with respect to municipal properties. What does that mean? For example, if you have a building, a town hall or whatever and you are going to insure it, an auditor needs to determine how much insurance coverage the town needs here to replace this piece of infrastructure. If the building is worth $500,000 and you have it insured for $150,000, then obviously there is going to be a shortfall.

One of the things, I think, that probably drove this amendment, people remember last year or the year before last - I am looking at the Member for Baie Verte-Springdale.

MR. POLLARD: Last year.

MR. VERGE: Last year, the fire department down in Baie Verte burned. While the council had insurance on the building and their assets, it turned out that the insurance was not adequate to cover the deficit. It was not adequate to replace the infrastructure and the equipment that was there.

I have been talking to the Member for Baie Verte-Springdale about that and he said while the fire department is back up and running in that area, they have a lot of the equipment restored, the town jumped in and did a lot of fundraising and the government helped out with funds. I am sure that the Member for Baie Verte-Springdale was very active in assisting with all of that. The fire department is back, running and operational, thanks to a big effort by the people there, government and their member; nevertheless, probably a lot of effort would not have to have been expended if adequate fire insurance was carried on their assets. I guess a lesson was learned there, Mr. Speaker.

Clause 11 of the bill, what it does is it requires ministerial approval before a municipality can enter into a capital lease agreement. This is an interesting one and what this does, Mr. Speaker, is it sort of fills a hole. We have had borrowing regulations in place now for municipalities such that there are procedures that they have to go through in order to borrow money. Of course, government wants to make sure that all of our towns are fiscally prudent and that they do not overextend themselves. That is why these procedures are put in place. The legislation did not cover leases, so a town could actually go out and lease, say, a piece of equipment, a vehicle or some sort, and they did not require the ministerial approval to do the lease. This little hole in the legislation has now been filled and ministerial approval will be required in order for towns to enter into a capital lease agreement.

I want to talk for a couple of minutes on the process of debt collection, Mr. Speaker. Currently, if somebody is delinquent, they owe the town money, there are a number of procedures a town could involve themselves in, but it was pretty much litigation. Sue, take the property owner to court, or maybe seize their property and sell it if they can, or maybe sometimes they do not have any property so you may be able to take them to court and get a judgment on behalf of the town. What this piece of legislation is doing, clause 17, is that it is going to allow municipalities to use lawful means of civil debt collection so that now a municipality can actually go to a collection agency, for example, and get them to assist with the recovery of reasonable costs. It is going to facilitate tax collection and give municipalities a cost-effective collection tool.

I want to talk for a minute about clause 17 which are interest charges. What this does is, again, it goes back to when a town maybe acquires a piece of property, takes ownership of it in order to sell and to collect back taxes. The previous clause that I talked about removed the third party lien. What this one does is it includes in the statutory lien any interest owning in relation to the outstanding taxes. Currently, interest is excluded from the lien. If somebody owed taxes, let's say in the amount of $5,000 and they owed it for ten years, there was a fair bit of interest that would have been accumulated on that money if the town actually did not have it in their revenue. So it is like a loan, there would be interest. Now if the town goes and takes over that property, sells it to recoup their taxes, they can also recoup the interest at the same time and the interest and the tax is both paid to the town before any other debts or any other liens on that property are paid.

Clause 27 and clause 28, Mr. Speaker, of the bill requires written permits from a municipality in relation to sales from stands and vehicles and the erection of signs. Currently, permission is needed for vendors and that to setup in a community, but this says you need written permission, not just verbal permission.

Clause 31, dealing with the issuance of cheques. A formal ministerial order is no longer required to issue cheques where a comptroller has been appointed. Again, that is just a piece that falls right in line with our red tape reduction initiative.

There are some good changes there, Mr. Speaker, I think changes that will help our municipalities operate better, smoother, more efficiently, and enable people to do their job better.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this piece of legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): 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 on this bill. I think Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 is an important bill.

Obviously, the minister and other speakers have spoken to a lot of the details that are in the bill, and there are quite a number of details in the bill. I think that Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador has been waiting for a long time, for several years, for some of these changes to come in. It is good to know that the changes that are coming in are changes that the municipalities around the Province have been looking for.

There is a lot here, and I know that the department has put a lot of effort into this, and they have obviously had discussions with Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, but it is still a lot to get our heads around as well. One wants to feel that one understands what we are passing.

A couple of the things that strike me about this bill is that there are going to be some things in the bill that people in the municipalities – taxpayers – are going to need some explanation about. There is also the issue of the training of councillors and staff around some of the new things that are in the bill as well. So I think this is something that, I am sure, that Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador will take on, but government has to be aware also of things that will be new for people and that they will need some education around.

One of things that struck me, actually, was something that I think the municipalities definitely want and I heard one of my colleagues say that he was really glad to see it. I am sure that there are going to be people in the Province who will need education around it. It was section 30 where, to use common language, section 30 abolishes Squatters' Rights. I have a sense that there are going to be people in the Province who are not going to like the whole issue of the loss of Squatters' Rights when it comes to land that the municipality considers to be municipal land.

Now we do have a bill that is going to allow the municipalities to take over land that they do own, really. The new clause that will be in legislation says: "Notwithstanding a law or practice to the contrary, no period of possession of lands that are owned by a municipality counts for the purpose of conferring upon a person an interest in the lands so possessed." So the municipality has the right.

So I think there are going to be a lot of things that are going to have to be explained by municipalities, explained by the Province, and explained by Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador as an organization.

I also think that there are things in the bill, and that will be in legislation, that are going to require resources to be put in place. The training of staff that will have to happen with regard to some of the issues that are in the new legislation; training, for example, with regard to compliance around the auditing of financial statements in order to access the gas tax funding; a clear need for training in that area. Training has already begun but it is an example of the need that is out there around training. A lot of the smaller municipalities do not have the capacity to do some training. I do know that Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador is involved in some training efforts, but I think that the department also has to be involved in resources being offered to help smaller municipalities with regard to training.

Another thing that strikes me is that something that is really good, section 4, which will allow councils to offer pension and other benefits to councillors – who are paid councillors – is good, and obviously that is another area where there is going to have to be training involved as municipalities look at that. Unfortunately, it also points out inequality that we have between larger councils and smaller councils. Larger councils, for example, have a better capacity to offer remuneration to councillors; it will be those councils that will have the possibility of also offering other benefits on top of salary. It points to the imbalance that we have in the Province and, in a sense, an inequity.

I do not know how the Province gets around this but I do think we need to look at the way in which the smaller councils do need more assistance from government. While it is wonderful to have this stuff in place, I think the thing that we need to look at is how do we help smaller councils access the capacity to be able to benefit from some of the new things that we are putting into the legislation. That is something that does concern me quite a bit and I would like to hear the minister speak to that a bit in terms of the ability of councillors to comply with a new legislation.

The issue, for example, in section 10 with regard to insurance adequacy; do municipalities have adequate insurance on their assets? The problem is that with smaller municipalities, they very often do not have the ability to have adequate insurance. How do we deal with that? In municipalities where we have an aging population, where we have a greater number of members of the community who are on fixed incomes, it takes away from the ability of municipalities to raise taxes, for example.

When you have municipalities that have a small tax base, a tax base that has a lot of people who are on fixed income, how do they get the money to be able to make sure that the assets they do have are adequately insured? This is something, I think, that the Province has to look at. It is one thing to say that they get adequate insurance, but what if they cannot afford it? They will be concerned about compliance and we will have other examples of communities going around doing fundraisers to try to rebuild burnt facilities such as the fire hall in Baie Verte that has been referred to a couple of times.

We do have to look at the new legislation, not just from the eyes of the councillors or the municipalities like St. John's, Corner Brook, Grand Falls, and other larger places; we also have to look at the new legislation from the perspective of the smaller communities and the communities with the smaller base. I do look forward to hearing the minister speak to that a bit and talk about what ideas he may have to address that particular issue.

Mr. Speaker, quite a number of things that strike me that way are issues that will require more training and, therefore, more resources. It is important because we have to become more professional and our municipalities have to be able to act professionally and be able to meet the needs of the people. What is the role of the Province in assisting them in doing that? That is the question that I put to the minister, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to hearing what he has to say about that.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KEVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to get up here today to speak on this bill. Basically, what I want to do, I just want to talk a little bit about how important it is for us to support municipalities right across the Province. What this bill does is - basically, it is the wishes of Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador and what they want from this government, and some changes they want to be made. It is important that we support them, and being a former Mayor for the Town of Flatrock, I understand some of these things.

Mr. Speaker, councillors, mayors, and people in municipal politics put a lot of time and effort into what they do each and every day, how they support the people in their communities. It is very important because their jobs sometimes are looked on as the last - they serve everybody in their community, and they are looked on sometimes as you can fall out with your neighbour or you can fall out with the guy down the street because of the work you do to make sure that everybody lives in a better town and a better place for everyone to live in. It is a very hard job sometimes and I know, through personal experience, that being a mayor - some of my friends, we had to make a decision, and the decision did not go their way and it meant that a guy held me in contempt for what happened. Sometimes it is very difficult for people to serve on council because some of these communities are small, they are tiny communities, and they are your neighbours and they are your friends, and you have to make decisions against the people - not against them, you are making the decision for the best of your town. So sometimes it is very difficult to serve as a mayor or a councillor in the town.

What this bill does today, it really sets out the support that is asked for by Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador. It is very important - like the minister said, these are the people who are in the communities, these are the people who are in the trenches, and so it is important that we support them.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I will not go through the legislation because I think all the hon. members already did it, but there are a couple of important pieces there and we have to just look at what we are doing for remuneration. It does not change the amount of remuneration that people are going to get but it gives them an opportunity to have a pension plan or to get some group benefits that right now only the City of St. John's, through the City of St. John's Act, can get. This is just a way we are helping these people out and making sure that they can get the few little benefits that are there because there are not many benefits for being a councillor or a mayor of these small towns. Again, Mr. Speaker, things like that are very important.

The other one that I want to touch base on is how towns sometimes cannot give to charities. As a small town, and I know as the Mayor of the Town of Flatrock at the time, we had some things that we had to do for people who had different medical expenses and we could not do it. This is an opportunity right now that the towns can do it.

Mr. Speaker, I know that I do not have much time here this evening so I will just shut it down. Again, I would like to just say to the minister, it is a great job that you are doing here and it is great that we are supporting the towns and municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

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

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