April 18, 2011                       HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                 Vol. XLVI   No. 17


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the Chair would like to welcome eight Grade 11 students from Cloud River Academy from the District of The Straits & White Bay North. The students are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Adam Kelly, and their chaperone, Ms Lucy Hiscock.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker would like also to welcome three members from the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association; Mr. Bruce Pearce, national president; Ms Kate Moffatt, director; and Mr. Sheldon Pollett, Board Member.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard: the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South, the hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale, the hon. the Member for the District of Kilbride, the hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue, and the hon. the Member for the District of Trinity North, by leave.

I understand the hon. member has leave.

The hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to congratulate Art Fowlow Limited of South Brook, in Green Bay South, as the top overall forestry contractor in Atlantic Canada for 2010.

In selecting the top contractor for the region, the Canadian Woodlands Forum evaluated a long list of items including safety performance, adherence to forestry and environmental management policies and regulatory requirements, the volume of wood harvested, the number of employees and the amount of equipment on the operation, the use of new and innovative technology, and the overall management of the business itself.

Art, along with his son Sterling, is the lead mechanic and manages the woods operations. His son Gord, is the loader operator and the person who coordinates the trucking aspect of the business. Carl Sheppard is the foreman on the operation and the person who is responsible for the direct supervision of the men and the day-to-day planning and layout along with thirty to forty other employees.

This company is among one of Corner Brook Pulp and Paper's largest contractors in terms of the amount of equipment. He has been harvesting pulp wood and building roads for Corner Brook Pulp and Paper and its predecessor Bowater Newfoundland since 1974.

I ask my hon. colleagues in the House of Assembly to join with me in congratulating Art Fowlow, his family, and their employees on this exceptional award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with great pride that I rise in this hon. House today to acknowledge and recognize the outstanding efforts of courageous individuals who each captured a very prestigious title.

Mr. Lorne Head of the Baie Verte fire department, Mr. Craig Ward of the La Scie fire department, Mr. Johnathon Edison of the Springdale fire department, and Mr. Evan Haas of the Mings Bight Fire Department, each named ‘Firefighter of the Year'. These unselfish, brave individuals embody all the extraordinary attributes of volunteers who everyday add something extra to our communities. Their unwavering dedication, tireless efforts and unselfish service are appreciated not only by their peers but also by their proud and supportive communities.

Being named ‘Firefighter of the Year' is no small feat, Mr. Speaker. Accepting risk and going the extra mile is a normal occurrence for firefighters.

For that, Mr. Speaker, I humbly ask all colleagues in this hon. House to join me in applauding their achievement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: I stand in this hon. House today to congratulate the Grade 5 Girls Basketball Team from Goulds Elementary School who won the Grade 5 Provincial Basketball Championship on Saturday, February 19, 2011.

This provincial tournament was hosted by Goulds Elementary School and featured teams from St. Francis of Assisi, Cowan Heights, and Newtown Elementary.

After a very competitive and successful round robin, Goulds Elementary and St. Francis of Assisi from Outer Cove faced off in the championship game. I never in my day saw a more hard-fought game, with the final score being 27-26 in favour of Goulds Elementary. Goulds Elementary was losing by one point when they scored the final basket with nine seconds left in the game. Incidentally, this Grade 5 team won the Provincial Grade 6 B Girls Championship the following weekend in Mount Pearl.

Members of the winning team are Alisyn McGrath, Emma Power, Faith Freake, Casey Prince, Grace Bennett, Hannah Locke, Jessica Duke, Julia Ridgeley, Kielly Emberely, Lauren Ennis, Kaleigh Vaughan, Kaileigh Kinsella, Mackenzie Gordon, Melanie Escott, Nikia Howlett, Sadie-Lynn Newell, and Tenille Lahey. Their coaches were Renee Bennett, Kim Williams, and Manager Trina Power.

I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the team, their coaches, and the parents who ran off this very successful tournament.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to talk of the Community 5 Lions Club of Dildo and their important role in blood collection.

Community 5 Lions Club has hosted a blood collection donor clinic for thirty-five years. On an average, there are sixty units of blood collected at each clinic, and the clinic is held six times per year. Each unit of blood collected could save three lives. In calculation, 360 units per year works out to 1080 lives per year, and 12,600 units for thirty-five years works out to be 37,800 lives over a thirty-five year period.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the individuals, Mr. Adolphus Smith and Mr. Morley Reid for their long-term involvement. Mr. Adolphus Smith works as a caretaker and as a Lions mentor and he organizes the building, the equipment and all the preparations for the clinic. Mr. Reid also is a long-term organizer and advocate for the blood donor clinic.

Also, Mr. Speaker, there are four other individuals who are approaching the 100 donation mark for giving blood.

I ask all hon. members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the Community 5 Lions Club for their dedication and commitment to the blood donor clinic and to the individuals for their tremendous support and volunteering of their time and blood to save lives.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I stand today, not just on behalf of Trinity North but the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Clarenville Caribous – the Allan Cup Champions for 2011.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, the Allan Cup was established in 1908 to be awarded to the senior amateur hockey champions in Canada. The first trophy was presented in 1908-1909 to the Ottawa Cliffsides.

This weekend past, the Clarenville Caribous won all four of their games to become the Allan Cup Champions for 2011.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I say to my colleague, the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans, the champions for all of Canada, not just Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I do want to acknowledge my colleague for Carbonear-Harbour Grace because the Clarenville Caribous picked up some people from the Conception Bay CeeBees to round out their team. They picked up some players from the Carbonear-Harbour Grace area to round out their team, but they did make a major contribution to the successful win on the weekend, so I thank my colleague, the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, for his gracious support and congratulating the Caribous on their wonderful win.

Mr. Speaker, this is only the second time in the 103-year history of this cup that a Newfoundland and Labrador team has actually won. The Corner Brook Royals won it some twenty-five years ago in 1986. I say, Mr. Speaker, that winning team in 1986 was made up of mostly mainlanders. This team, twenty-two of the twenty-four players were born in Newfoundland and Labrador and products of the Newfoundland and Labrador Minor Hockey System.

As an added bonus, Mr. Speaker, Clarenville goaltender, Jason Churchill, was outstanding for the whole tournament. In fact, he received the Most Valuable Player Award for the series. Jason, Mr. Speaker, is a product of the Clarenville area Minor Hockey System.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you coach him?

MR. WISEMAN: I did not coach him, no.

This was Clarenville's second trip to the Allan Cup. They played last year in British Columbia and, obviously, that experience held them in good stead for this year's championship.

Mr. Speaker, in the final game, they defeated the Bentley Generals of Alberta 5-3 in the championship game.

I would ask all members of this House to congratulate, on behalf of your constituents and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, the Clarenville Caribous on becoming the Allan Cup Champions for 2011.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform hon. members that the provincial government will contribute $30,000 to support the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association's annual congress, being held in our Province on May 2 to May 5, 2012.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time in its forty-four year history that this national non-profit organization will hold its annual gathering right here in our Province.

The association represents those who manage and deliver housing programs in communities across Canada, and it serves to strengthen and support the social housing sector. Its members include housing providers, governments, municipalities, associations, and individuals with an interest in housing.

As Minister Responsible for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, I am very pleased to announce our support for this association. Not only will the congress bring people from across the country to our Province, it will also provide an opportunity for us to showcase what we have accomplished through our Provincial Social Housing Plan, Secure Foundations.

The provincial government has made considerable progress in the provision of affordable housing for those with the greatest need. The congress in 2012 will be our opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to demonstrate our continued support for affordable housing for families and individuals with the greatest need.

In addition, it will provide an opportunity for all of our stakeholders, including our partner, the newly-established Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and Homelessness Network, to lead the conference planning for this event. Indeed, the current President of the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association is Bruce Pearce, a well-known local advocate for affordable housing right here in this Province.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Pearce and a number of others are here with us in the gallery this evening, and I welcome them.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say how pleased I am that our government supports the hosting of the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association Congress right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. In response to their invitation, I look forward to an opportunity to join them later this year in Regina where I can further extend an invitation to all other delegates across Canada.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. We are pleased to hear that Newfoundland and Labrador will be hosting the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association Congress next year for the first time in forty-four years. Mr. Speaker, no doubt about it, affordable housing and homelessness are huge concerns in the communities throughout our Province. We hear so much about that, where we are looking and trying to get more affordable housing for our residents.

Despite the rosy picture, Mr. Speaker, there are many challenges, however, still left. There are a total at the present time of 1,030 people across this Province on a current wait-list for housing. We always hear the poverty activists continuing to highlight those concerns that we should have more affordable housing, and that homelessness is on a rise in this Province and something should be done about it, Mr. Speaker. Too many people in this Province are struggling to get affordable housing. There are other issues through the provincial repair programs as well as the disability component of it that should be addressed.

I know it is twelve months away; we are glad that the conference is coming here. I am sure it will be a tremendous success and we know that our hospitality will be one thing that they all will enjoy when they come to our shores.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Obviously, I am very glad to see that the government is supporting the congress that will be held by the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association next year. Having a conference of that nature here in our own Province will mean that a larger group of people, both from the not-for-profit sector, from the municipal and provincial sector, will have an opportunity to take part in what I know would be an extremely educational event which will show people what is happening elsewhere in this country and raise our hopes for what we can do here in this Province.

The Canadian Housing and Renewal Association are an umbrella organization that has tirelessly advocated for more affordable and energy efficient housing to be built across the country. While I agree with the minister that some progress has been made by this Province, we have a long way to go in terms of the amount of affordable housing here in our Province and certainly housing that is energy efficient.

A good start for the government would be to look at the recommendations of the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and Homelessness Network's housing and homelessness framework that came out last October and start putting some of those recommendations in place. I also hope the Province will become inspired to set up a department dealing with housing, something which is a shame that we do not have in this Province. What we have, Mr. Speaker, does not deal with housing policy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to acknowledge the recipients of the fifty-ninth annual Arts and Letters Awards presented this past weekend, and thank my colleague, the Member for St. John's East, for representing government at that event.

The Arts and Letters Awards program was established in 1952. It recognizes the creative talent of established writers, composers, and visual artists, as well as young emerging talent throughout the Province. The program is administered by a committee appointed by the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

This year, the provincial government awarded more than $46,000 in prizes to entrants in the categories of literary arts, including French, musical composition, and visual arts. Of the almost 800 entries submitted to this year's program, thirty-five awards were presented in the junior division to entrants aged twelve to eighteen, and thirty-seven awards were presented in the senior division.

With the top prize of $1,500, the Percy Janes First Novel Award is an honour bestowed to a first-time novelist for his or her unpublished manuscript. This year, it was awarded to Lee Burton of St. John's for the work titled, Raw Flesh in the Rising.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the most vibrant, cultural communities in the country and boasts a wealth of talented artists who have made their mark locally, nationally and internationally. Many of these artists gained their first recognition through the Arts and Letters program. In fact, thousands of professional and amateur artists from this Province have participated in this program over the years.

I commend everyone who participated in this year's Arts and Letters program and I congratulate those who have been honoured. Hats off to the creative spirit we have right here at home in literature, music, and visual art.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

If there is one area of endeavour that this Province has become famous for, of course, is the arts. Our writers have been up for consideration for every major national and international award, except for the Noble Peace Prize for literature, and that is just a matter of time.

In the last year, for example, Kathleen Winter's novel, Annabel was nominated for an Atlantic book award, the Gillard prize, and the Governor General's Literary Award. This year, one Newfoundland and Labrador Poet, Richard Greene won the Governor General's award for poetry for his book, Boxing the Compass.

How do we get good writers, Mr. Speaker? We start them off early. They have to start off early, they have to write often, and of course they need encouragement to pursue it in their careers. That is what the provincial Arts and Letters award is all about. It is encouraging young writers to get involved and learn their skill and their craft and we certainly would endorse that program.

Congratulations to all those who participated, and to all those who won prizes and awards at this recent event.

Thank you.

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

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

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

I am always pleased to speak to issues with regard to the arts, particularly since my district of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I think has the highest per capita residents in the arts living in the district of anywhere in Canada. The minister is nodding his head over there, so I am correct in my statistic. I do want to congratulate the winners in this year's Arts and Letters Awards program, and particularly Lee Burton, because that is quite an award that was received there.

It is true these awards often help the participants continue work in the arts, as they receive positive critiques of their entries, and they do get small monetary remuneration. Mr. Speaker, right now, we do not have adequate funding for people in the arts. The per capita budget of the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council is $4. Our arts council is the third-lowest funded council in the country, with New Brunswick and PEI behind it. Ontario and Manitoba and others are double that, at $8 to $10, and Quebec is at $12, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly hope the minister will listen to recommendations that will come from the community forums held around this Province by the arts council. Our artists are winning awards all over the world, and it is encouraging others to visit our Province, and we need to support them.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is a silence penetrating the House today, it seems. It must be in anticipation of the Budget coming tomorrow; everybody is waiting.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier and it is regarding Muskrat Falls. I wanted to stay on the topic of excess power, because both the Premier and Mr. Martin have made many contradictory statements about it. In our last briefing with Nalcor, Mr. Martin clearly stated that if there are sales of excess power the money will not be used to reduce the rates that people will pay in Newfoundland and Labrador. When I asked the Premier, Mr. Speaker, she also indicated that it would be a decision of the government of the day.

I ask why, Premier, you would not commit to use any revenues from excess power sales to offset the cost of Muskrat Falls power to ratepayers in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, first let me correct what the Leader of the Opposition just stated, because I have checked with all of the officials who attended the briefing that Nalcor gave to the Leader of the Opposition and members of the Opposition Party.

Mr. Martin did not state anything with regard to the sales of electricity and what those funds might be used for. What he did point out was, that was a policy decision that belonged to the government, Mr. Speaker, and he was absolutely correct in saying it. He would not make a decision. Nalcor will not be responsible for that decision, Mr. Speaker. That has to be made by the government of the day.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to predict what is going to happen in 2016. In 2016, once Muskrat Falls is online and generating electricity and we have sales, then the government of the day will make a decision with regard to that policy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is Nalcor will not use the money to pay down the cost for ratepayers in this Province and the Premier is saying that any sales from excess power will not go back to offset the ratepayers in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask the Premier today: Why is it that any power sales in excess power on Muskrat Falls, why is it that that money will not go to subsidize ratepayers in Newfoundland and Labrador who are being asked to pay for 100 per cent of this project?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is reassuring to know that the Leader of the Opposition certainly does not believe that she is going to be here in 2016 to make such a policy decision.

Mr. Speaker, we may make a decision in 2016 to use the money received from excess power sales to lower electricity rates here in the Province. We are not about to make that decision today, Mr. Speaker, because we will need to know what is happening in 2016; lowering electricity rates across the board, Mr. Speaker, in such a way as she suggests often benefits the wealthy more than they do anybody else.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps it might be a better investment for us to do for the working infrastructure, poverty reduction, or a dozen other initiatives that will be supported by the government of the day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government has not provided the evidence to back up that there is a shortage of power on the Island. They have not been able to provide any indication that Muskrat Falls power is economical for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. One of the things that was confirmed is that Nalcor's price on Muskrat Falls will include a profit for the corporation.

I ask the Premier today: Why is it okay for Nalcor to earn a profit as a corporation but the people in this Province will have to spend more for electricity?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Nalcor is owned, lock, stock and barrel, by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. There is only one shareholder in Nalcor, Mr. Speaker. Whatever that utility and that oil and gas, company and other different subsidiaries earn, Mr. Speaker, belongs to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and will be used for the functioning and running or paying down of debt of this Province when it is appropriate to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier is forgetting that she is selling off 29 per cent of our transmission in this project to a private company in Nova Scotia, to Emera corporation, Mr. Speaker, so we will no longer 100 per cent own energy transmission in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the environmental panel looking into the Muskrat Falls Project wrapped up its hearings last week. One of the last speakers was Philip Raphals of the Helios Centre which is an environmental think-tank. Mr. Raphals said that your project is very unusual in that even after Muskrat Falls is paid for, electrical rates will not go down. His question, I think, goes to the very heart of this particular project, the real reason why you are developing Muskrat Falls.

I ask you today Premier: Why is it that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will not gain cheap energy, but Nalcor will gain a profit –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - Emera Energy will gain a profit, and Nova Scotians will get cheaper power?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, Nalcor belongs to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. So, Mr. Speaker, when Nalcor does well, so do the people. Whatever profits they earn belong to the people and will be applied to the needs of the people one way or the other. Policy will direct that, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, generation of electricity is a regulated activity in this Province. People have an opportunity to invest in transmission infrastructure. Emera has taken advantage of that, Mr. Speaker, and they will get a regulated rate of return from that, set by the PUB in the same way that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro does, and in the same way that Newfoundland Power does.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Nalcor might be owned by the people, but the people did not have a say in putting $23 million in a hole in the oil – for looking for oil in Parsons Pond. Nor did they have a say, Mr. Speaker, on whether their light bills should be doubled up or not in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, for several years the Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides has been asking the provincial government to implement a ban on cosmetic pesticides in the Province. Mr. Speaker, they have made representation to the government and the minister. The minister claims that he needs to do due diligence on this file and he needs some time to have a look at it, although he has been aware of it since he has been the Minister of Health.

I ask the minister today: What sort of commitment are you prepared to make on banning cosmetic pesticides in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I have said to the environmental groups who have come in to have a chat with me about this issue –because it is something that has been talked about a lot in Newfoundland and Labrador in recent years and because it is an important issue, I need to make sure that we fully understand the issues at hand, the implications of making any change in any legislation we have on the books in the Province.

The commitment I have made to them, that as a department we are in a process of doing some due diligence, evaluating the question at hand and when we are ready, I said I would bring forward to my Cabinet colleagues a recommendation as to how we might proceed as a Province. When that exercise has been concluded, Mr. Speaker, then we will be in a position to make an announcement for the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This issue has been going on for the last two or three years, government has been aware of it. It is supported, Mr. Speaker, by the Canadian Cancer Society, by the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, the Nurse's Association, the Lung Association. There are many other groups, the Federation of Municipalities, even three of the largest cities in the Province, Mr. Speaker, have looked at this particular issue and supported it.

I ask the minister today: Will you not make a commitment to this particular group as it relates to cosmetic pesticides and will you do it in the course of the next few months?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the member opposite for listing off all of those who have an interest in it because it speaks to the sensitivities around the issue; it speaks to the complexity of the question and the issues that have been raised by those particular members and those organizations that they represent.

Let me repeat what I said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, it is an important issue. It requires a lot of consideration. There are a number of implications in making any policy change in the Province and any time we introduce legislation as a government it is not done frivolously. It is done as a result of a lot of analysis, a lot of due diligence on our part. When we bring something to this House and introduce something to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can be assured it has been well analyzed, we have done our due diligence and we will make the appropriate decisions in the best interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Over the past weekend, I think between Bell Island and The Strait of Bell Isle there has been nothing only a ferry nightmare, not a fairytale I say to the minister. As you know, Mr. Speaker, on the Strait of Bell Isle service today the Apollo was up for a mechanical refit and they have the Astron on, which is carrying freight and tractor-trailers because it is the only vessel apparently available in the Province and passengers are being flown in and out of the area. It is less than ideal and it has not worked well over the last few days.

Mr. Speaker, government is aware of the gaps that exist in this service. They went to tender two years ago and could not find a ferry.

I ask the minister today: What is the long-term strategy of your government to replace the ferry service on the Strait of Belle Isle with an appropriate service that people can depend upon for year-round service?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I remind the hon. member on the other side I am not a fairy godfather either. I just cannot out of the blue pick a ship or a boat. They are simply not available.

Now, with regard to the Straits service, as the member knows, basically this government has made a commitment to do a pilot project to explore ways in which we can do fifty-two weeks of the year with regard to the Straits service – right now and over the last number of weeks. When we get that done, obviously, decisions will be made and they will be relayed to the people of the Straits and of Newfoundland and Labrador.

At this particular time, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to go any further.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to ask the minister, because this particular contract went to tender two years ago. There was no suitable vessel that could be found outside of the Apollo, which is an aging vessel at this stage.

I ask the minister today: Are you and your government prepared to make a commitment to have that ferry replaced on the Strait of Belle Isle, either by having a new ferry constructed or finding another ferry in our system? Are you going to wait for the next two years for the contract to expire before you do anything with it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, I say to the hon. member opposite, it was her government that made the deal to put the Apollo in. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that it has been one of the most dependable ferries we have in our service. I do not think the member can deny that.

We know that there is a shelf life to every vessel. We know that we do and will have to make a decision as to where we are going. As I pointed out, that is not a decision that you can make overnight. That is a decision that is going to take a lot of debate, discussion, and consultation. This pilot project is leading us down the road to that.

When we get the information that we require and I require in order to bring it to government, I will do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have no regrets about choosing the Apollo, and she has served the people of the area well, but the reality is the ship is aging. It needs to be replaced. Mr. Speaker, the people need a commitment from their government to make that happen.

Mr. Speaker, the people on the North Coast of Labrador have had to depend upon the aging Northern Ranger as a passenger service, and other vessels to bring freight into the area. We have received a number of complaints from the North Coast over the last number of years around this configuration of ships for their area. They are asking that there be a different configuration, that there be one ship to service the northern region of Labrador that can handle freight and passengers.

I ask your government: Are you committed to ensure that there is a stable service on a go-forward basis with a new configuration of ships for the North Coast of Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, we have been working closely with the people of the North Coast and presenting to them what options we need to look at, direction that we need to go in, and this year we have certainly responded with four new contracts. These contracts are going to be taken over by different providers. As well, we do have a different freight boat going up, the Dutch Runner. Again, we are moving forward, Mr. Speaker, but again, as I pointed out, we are moving forward but moving forward making sure that we are making the right decisions because this is a very critical service to the North Coast, to all of Labrador, and for Newfoundland and Labrador. We will continue to do our due diligence to make sure that we are making the right decisions.

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.

Mr. Speaker, as highlighted by the Auditor General's report, government spent millions of dollars on fibre optic cable strands which, to date, remain unlit or unused. With the government's broadband strategy on hold, residents, families, and businesses in rural Newfoundland and Labrador are placed at a serious disadvantage in today's information-based economy and our reliance on technology to connect. Everyday, Mr. Speaker, we receive calls and e-mails from communities across the Province: in my district; Hawke's Bay; Brown's Arm; Bellburns; neighbouring communities and so on, that do not have high-speed access and have to rely on antiquated dial-up access to the Internet.

I ask the minister: What can you tell these communities and the thousands of people in our Province who do not have high-speed Internet, about when they can expect the same basic services as those in other parts of the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial government can neither mandate nor regulate, nor order a carrier to deliver high-speed Internet anywhere in this Province. As much as we might like to do that, that, unfortunately, is not our mandate. That mandate is completely beyond our jurisdiction.

This particular industry is federally regulated, Mr. Speaker. Having said that, it is important to point out as well that we as a government work closely with the federal government. In fact, I have spoken to Minister Tony Clement and I have indicated to the minister that we need further strategy. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we have invested, by means of trying to stimulate that particular access, some-$20.6 million in the infrastructure needed for this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, we realize the government has made investment, and the people of the Province are frustrated with the lack of high-speed Internet. Retailers on the Northern Peninsula have joined the course of residents, students, and families who are calling on government to stay with its commitment identified in the 2006 innovative strategy and roll out broadband access to all areas of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, according to a CBC news story back on March 2, planned changes to phase out the outdated dial-up could leave retailers in rural communities in the technological Dark Ages unable to process purchases if they do not get high-speed Internet connection.

Again, I ask the minister: Will you live up to your commitment, step up to the plate and make high-speed connection mandatory in all areas of our Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again, I wish that we could mandate high-speed Internet in all areas of this Province, we cannot. It is beyond our jurisdiction, but what we have done is that we have invested $20.6 million to date in particular infrastructure.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing to show for it.

MS SULLIVAN: Nothing to show for it, I am hearing from across the room here, Mr. Speaker.

Let's talk about the fact that since 2006 we now have 80 per cent of the Province with high-speed Internet connection.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: We have 95 per cent of Labrador with high-speed Internet connection, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, this is an issue across Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS SULLIVAN: Eight hundred thousand households, rural households in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, do not have that kind of connectivity. This is not an issue simply for here. Mr. Speaker, where once there were only 114 communities connected, we now have 450…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Personal care homes in the Province are suffering at the hands of this government. We have raised this issue on numerous occasions and today we raise it again in hopes that the minister will do the responsible thing and make some changes to help, instead of harm, the small rural personal care homes in the Province.

I ask the minister: Will government commit to giving an appropriate increase in the rental rates so that the personal care homes can provide what government is legislating them to do currently?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

By last count, we had ninety-seven personal care homes in the Province. They are private businesses which look after patients who are classified as requiring Level I and II care. There are 3,910 beds, Mr. Speaker, with a very high vacancy rate. Since 2004, this government has increased the personal care home subsidy rate by $604 a month, from $1,172 to $1,717.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: We provided equalization grants in 2006. We provided money to install sprinkler systems, Mr. Speaker, and we have created more than 1,000 affordable subsidies since 2005. Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? On March 31, we announced $1 million to fund personal care homes in remote locations with isolation grants.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister also knows that they have implemented legislation which is costing these homes a lot more in order to meet the requirements that you are outlining for them. As a result of it, Mr. Speaker, they are not able to continue to operate on the grants they have. In addition, they have been subject to clawbacks by the federal government. As a comparison to the rest of Atlantic Canada, it shows that our personal care homes have the lowest subsidized rate, the highest minimum wage, the highest staff to resident ratio, and yet they are compensated the least.

I ask you minister, we are at a turning point and some of our homes will close if government does not provide additional funding. I ask you minister: Will your government finally commit to providing funding for these personal care homes that is adequate for them to meet the needs of our aging seniors and others who need to find housing in these homes?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

During the last summer, I had the opportunity of visiting a number of these personal care homes throughout the Province. Mr. Speaker, a very sociable atmosphere, a lot of them were very modern facilities.

Mr. Speaker, we have invested, as a government, $20 million in the personal care home sector since 2004. As I have indicated, we have now increased the personal care home rate from $1,138 to $1,717 since 2004. Recently, Mr. Speaker, on March 31, we announced $1 million in isolation grants. Mr. Speaker, the rules will be laid out in terms of these smaller personal care homes can access this money, but essentially in this Province we have bigger homes which are considered to be more than fifty beds and we have smaller homes. So, the million dollars on March 31 will be able to help the smaller personal care homes in rural communities continue to exist.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to ask the minister about the community care homes which are supportive homes that provide services to clients with severe and persistent mental health issues. This is an Eastern Health program. There are approximately 170 patients living these homes and the current funding levels do not meet the current financial needs of the home owners. It has been brought to government's attention on numerous occasions, yet government has failed to provide the adequate level of funding.

I ask the minister: Why have you failed to meet the needs of community care homes that are out there providing these services to people with mental health issues?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, there are, to the best of my knowledge, fourteen community care homes in the Province with 186 beds; 177 of those beds are currently occupied. These community care homes can have anywhere from three to twenty-two adults in their facilities. Ten of the community care homes have less than fifteen residents. They avail of the same subsidy rates, Mr. Speaker, as the personal care homes. Again, I can indicate that since 2006 we have increased the personal care home rates up to $1,717 a month.

Mr. Speaker, we have been looking at personal care homes, we have been looking at community care homes, and we have invested significantly to the tune of $20 million over the last number of years to improve the financial viability of these homes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows that a home with six beds in this Province is paid $9,864 a month from the government. The cost of government's regulated wages alone cost nearly $8,000. That does not include any other expenses such as their food, their heat, their light, their maintenance, and their repairs. The association has opened their accounting books to you and they have proved their financial hardship to you time and time again

I ask the minister: Why are you choosing to ignore these patients by not providing the necessary levels of funding to the community care homes as they are requesting?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, the personal care homes and the community care homes play a vital role in helping us as a government look after our aging population. As I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, the personal care homes have up to 3,910 beds in the Province and there are ninety-seven personal care homes. Then we have our fourteen community care homes with 186 beds.

Mr. Speaker, we come back to the basic point that this government has invested significantly from $1,112 to $1,717 in the subsidy. That is more than $604 a month over a period of six or seven years. There was, in 2006, $3 million invested in the funding for the sprinkler systems. We have increased the subsidy rate to address the issue of the equalization rate. So, we have addressed, significantly, the concerns of these homes.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Leader of the Opposition: I am well aware of the issues –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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, the Speech from the Throne said that government would be announcing in this year's Budget an initiative for infant care with a potential for increasing child care spaces. Mr. Speaker, the potential of creating spaces is not enough.

Over the weekend, we heard that twenty parents in Mobile lined up overnight so they could register their children in a new daycare centre in their area. This facility can take forty children, and already there is a waiting list.

Mr. Speaker, could the Premier explain what she means by merely hoping to have more child care spaces when there is clearly a crying need?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All I can say to the Leader of the Third Party is she is going to have to keep her powder dry for another twenty-four hours, and then all will be revealed.

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.

Well, the government has been announcing already some of the stuff in tomorrow's Budget, so I am going to keep pushing because I do not want to wait the twenty-four hours and I do not think the parents on the Southern Shore or elsewhere in the Province want to wait twenty-four hours either, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: So I am asking the Premier: Tell the parents in Mobile who waited overnight what she would have to say to them with regard to others needing spaces. What is her message for them? Where is government's plan for more child care spaces, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for her question because it gives me the opportunity to highlight actually what we are doing in Mobile.

Mr. Speaker, this government invested $58,000 in developmental funding for that facility and we have also committed $266,000 for the start-up of the program. We are in discussions right now with ongoing funding, Mr. Speaker. This is to create forty-eight very much needed spaces –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: – not forty, as the member opposite indicated. Yes, there were twenty lined up, and there are twenty-eight more spaces available.

Since we came into power in 2003, Mr. Speaker, we have increased the number of child care spaces by 50 per cent, we have increased the number of child care subsidies by 72 per cent, we have increased the child care subsidy rate, and I will keep on going when she asks the next question, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the government continues to come up with short-term plans and bits and pieces. We have a patchwork quilt when it comes to child care -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: What we need to see is a real plan for child care, not more of the list that the minister has come up with. So, can she please tell this House what the plan is for universal child care in this Province?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing for certain, this government and th0is Premier and myself, as minister, are very committed to child care in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: It is extremely important when it comes to the economy, when it comes to providing opportunities for women to be in the workplace, and extremely important for the child's development itself, Mr. Speaker.

These things are not short-term; 168 spaces that we have created since 2006 with the child care capacity initiative, with the other 400 that I have on the books that you will hear lots of announcements about in the very near future and with what we are about to announce in the Budget, certainly is not short-term.

We also are committed to a ten-year strategy, Mr. Speaker, and there are lots of good things to come. In the words of the famous Minister of Finance: stay tuned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in fulfilling government's commitment to being transparent and accountable to the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is my pleasure to table the 2010 annual report for Chicken Farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador. This report provides an overview of key activities and financial statements of the board for the 2010 fiscal year.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table information in the House today to correct a miscalculation which occurred in a record of the government's vehicle fleet. The document I table today shows the quantities of purchased vehicles from April 2008 to March of 2011.

Where I have previously stated the total number of cars and SUVs purchased in this time frame was 125, we actually purchased seventy-six; thirty-one of which were hybrid. The document I table today contains the correct number of total vehicles and hybrid vehicles purchased illustrating that this government has purchased 41 per cent energy-efficient vehicles, exceeding its target of 25 per cent, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will move the following motion: that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. Speaker, I give further notice that I will move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider a resolution for the Granting of Supply to Her Majesty, Bill 30.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Standing Orders, I am pleased to stand and present the private member's motion for Wednesday. It is moved by myself, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, and seconded by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. I would like to read it into the minutes:

WHEREAS the fisheries historically has been the basis for the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador and can continue to contribute to growth and employment under sensible and prudent management; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has failed in their MOU process. Once the cornerstone of this government's fisheries policy, this process has been abandoned by this government and the minister of fisheries; and

WHEREAS rationalization in the fishing industry is proceeding whether or not this government is prepared to receive and manage these changes; and

WHEREAS restructuring is already proceeding, including fish plant closures and license transfers, affecting people's livelihoods and the economic viability of rural communities; and

WHEREAS it is the responsibility of government to manage the social effects of these serious economic changes and only immediate action will ensure the long-term survival of our harvesting and processing sectors;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House calls on government to consider establishing policies centered on the prudent long-term management of the fisheries including: the aggressive pursuit of a joint management regime with the federal government including securing custodial management of the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks; cooperation with industry to develop and implement a comprehensive long-term marketing strategy aimed at promoting the Province's seafood industry with a goal of increasing sales in world markets; promoting the utilization of a variety of marine species in food processing, as well as new industrial uses of marine products in pharmaceuticals, biomedicines, and other chemical products; forming partnerships with industry to implement an international procurement program to secure primary seafood products for local seafood processing plants; and committing to a program of adjustment for older workers and a comprehensive voluntary cost-shared harvesting license consolidation program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition relating to the banning of pesticides in Newfoundland and Labrador. This petition has been circulated and delivered to the House of Assembly through the hard earned efforts of concerned citizens out there throughout our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I will read the prayer of the petition for the record of the House of Assembly.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS as far back as 1999 the federal Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development stated in his annual report that "pesticides in the environment have been linked to lung diseases, reproductive problems and birth defects, developmental disorders, allergic reactions, lowered resistance to disease in humans, and cancer"; and

WHEREAS as far back as 2002 the City of St. John's, the largest municipality in the Province, in a letter to the provincial government asked that the City of St. John's Act be amended to permit the City to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides if the provincial government is not prepared to do so; and

WHEREAS in November 2009 Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador passed, unanimously, a resolution presented by the City of Mount Pearl calling on the provincial government to enact a ban against the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes in Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the City of Corner Brook has implemented a voluntary ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides; and

WHEREAS the City of St. John's has not used pesticides on recreational areas since 1995 and in 2010 issued the following public advisory: "To protect the health of our citizens, especially young children, City Council recommends that the general public avoid the use of pesticides on lawns and gardens for cosmetic purposes"; and

WHREAS in February 2009 the Canadian Cancer Society-NL, the Lung Association-NL, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association all wrote the Minister of Environment and Conservation expressing support for a Province-wide ban on cosmetic pesticide use; and

WHEREAS in June 2009 the above-named organizations wrote to both the Minister of Environment and Conservation and the Minister of Health and Community Services, this time on behalf of a provincial coalition of health and environmental organizations and concerned citizens, encouraging "the drafting of provincial legislation that will prohibit the sale and use of cosmetic pesticides" and stating that "the precautionary principle places the onus on government to explain why they are not acting to protect us from the unnecessary health and environmental risks posed by the cosmetic use of pesticides"; and

WHEREAS bans against the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes in Canadian municipalities (over 170 at present) and provinces (Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia) now protect the health of almost 80 per cent of Canadian citizens; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador is now the only Atlantic Province without a ban on the sale and the use of cosmetic pesticides;

THEREFORE, we, the undersigned, call on the House of Assembly to urge government to enact legislation in 2011 modeled after Ontario's Pesticides Act, banning the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

And as in duty bound, you petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by thousands of people from across Newfoundland and Labrador, people who come from not just the St. John's and the Mount Pearl area, but communities all across the region, like Conception Bay South, and Burgeo, and Heart's Delight, and Clarke's Beach, and Corner Brook, and Humber Valley, Whitbourne, Torbay, Carbonear. Mr. Speaker, there are hundreds of communities, I think, that are listed in this particular petition, and they are calling on government to do what other leaders in our Province have had the foresight to do already. Like the Cities of St. John's, and Mount Pearl, and Corner Brook.

They have been asking the government since 2009 to take this issue seriously.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that the time for presenting petitions is three minutes, the member has been speaking for four and a half minutes already. I ask her to conclude her remarks.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

May I, by leave, clue up my petition?

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

MS BURKE: To clue up.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the House giving me the time; it was a long prayer in the petition.

Mr. Speaker, they have been asking the government since 2009 to take this issue seriously, while other provinces across Canada have already implemented a ban to protect the health of their residents and the people who live in their Province, it is what they are asking the government in Newfoundland and Labrador to do as well. The legislation, Mr. Speaker, varies from province to province, and there have been times when exemptions have been afforded. I am sure they would be open to discussions with the government on how far the legislation should go and what should be contained in it.

At this stage, they have allowed the government the past three years to examine this particular policy, to look for a way to bring forward some innovative legislation that would fall in line with what other provinces in Canada are doing, and what other cities in our own Province are doing. They are asking the government to take this issue seriously, and to act immediately.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I rise today to deliver my second petition with respect to the issue of the Harmonized Sales Tax on home heating bills.

The petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the people of Newfoundland and Labrador pay the government Harmonized Sales Tax on home heating bills; and

WHEREAS this tax is causing great hardship to low-income families throughout the Province; and

WHEREAS the residents of this Province demand that our government remove the provincial portion of the Harmonized Sales Tax from home heating bills;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to remove the provincial tax from home heating bills.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have received dozens of these petitions from my District of Burgeo & La Poile. I understand there is another one being circulated provincially as well. It is obviously a matter of great concern and grave concern for, particularly low-income families who are having a tough time, those who are burning fuel. Any break they could get from this government would be greatly appreciated.

The Minister of Finance, of course, as everyone in this Province knows, is about to deliver his Budget tomorrow. Maybe there will be some goodies in that regard in the bill that might help these people and provide some form of relief for them as well.

I have heard different parties, the other Opposition party as well, putting forward this particular petition. A lady in my District of Burgeo & La Poile has been very outspoken on it, Ms Elizabeth Harvey who lives in Isle aux Morts. As anyone who has heard that name before knows, Ms Harvey is the type of individual that if she takes hold of a matter, she gives it her all. She is there to promote it and to make sure that ultimately something positive happens. She is a person who is not self-serving, who is there for everyone else and to volunteer and help out on these matters, particularly when it comes to affecting low-income families.

I am more than pleased to enter this petition on her behalf. Hopefully, we can see government respond in some kind of positive way. I see the Minister of Finance is signalling for a copy of the petition. I certainly would concur with that. In fact, if he wants, I can put him in touch personally with everybody who is listed on this petition, no question.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Labrador who are asking the government to do something with the gravel roads that exist in their region. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they are asking the government to take seriously the condition of the road, to address it, and to put a long-term strategy in place for the paving of that section. It reads:

WHEREAS the Trans-Labrador Highway is a vital transportation lifeline for the Labrador communities, providing access, generating economic activity, and allowing residents to obtain health care and other public services; and

WHEREAS Route 510 and connecting branch roads of the Trans-Labrador Highway are unpaved, in deplorable condition and are no longer suitable and safe for the traffic volumes that travel this route; and

WHEREAS Labrador cannot afford to wait years or decades for upgrading and paving of their essential transportation route; and

WHEREAS the petitioners ask the government to provide additional funding for the much-needed improvements to Route 510 and connecting branch roads of the Trans-Labrador Highway.

Mr. Speaker, this petition, I have been presenting it as they come into my office, as they are coming in from communities all over Labrador. At least from the areas from L'Anse au Clair right to Labrador City and Wabush. Mr. Speaker, what the people are asking is for government to invest in the gravel roads in the area and to bring them to a standard that can be useable because right now it is a huge concern.

Mr. Speaker, they are asking the government to deal with this issue. We are hoping we are going to see some monies in the Budget tomorrow, because we know this is one of the last gravel highway sections left in the Province. We know there are hundreds of kilometres of gravel road here. We realize there are thousands of people who travel over that highway every single day for all reasons, Mr. Speaker, and they deserve to have a good standard of road.

Today, Mr. Speaker, people are beating up their vehicles. Right now, as I speak, the road between Red Bay and Lodge Bay in particular is in a deplorable condition. There are nothing only ruts and potholes everywhere in this section of road. There are sections of road that extend right on up to Goose Bay where the road is really soft, where there are big trenches being made in the road from heavy vehicles and equipment going over it, and they are asking the government to address this.

People are putting their vehicles on the road in Labrador City and driving all the way to L'Anse au Clair over hundreds of kilometres of gravel road to get to a ferry that right now is broken down. Can you imagine how frustrating it is for the people who live in this Labrador region? It is no wonder they are bringing their petitions to the government and to the House of Assembly, because they are saying: Will you please come and see what we are enduring everyday? I invite members to do that. I invite the Minister of Transportation, I invite the other members from Labrador to put their vehicle on that road today, like I did only a week ago, and drive that particular section of highway and see the number of potholes, the number of trenches, the deplorable condition that it is in right now today. I invite them to come, Mr. Speaker, to drive that road and to see the condition that it is in.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

It gives me great pleasure to rise again today to present petition number nine of the porta-potty petition we call it. It is getting to be famously known now in rural Newfoundland. Of course, I speak of the petition on behalf of the people of La Poile in my district who are looking for a washroom, believe it or not. I have had hundreds of e-mails from people saying: Are you serious or is this some kind of joke that you are actually asking that government, who runs the ferry service, provide a washroom for people who use the ferry service? One seems to go hand in hand with the other, but unfortunately, it is not, Mr. Speaker.

I will just read the prayer. It says:

The petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

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 from time to time for the ferry; and

WHEREAS there is no restroom, waiting room area at the Town of Rose Blanche 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 House of Assembly to urge government to immediately construct and operate a waiting room, restroom facility at the Town of Rose Blanche such that all users of the provincial ferry service which operates out of La Poile may be able to utilize such washroom facilities.

Mr. Speaker, this is, as I say, the ninth petition I have entered here. Tomorrow is Budget Day, hopefully the Minister of Transportation and Works will find it somewhere in the Budget for 2011 that he can provide the most basic facilities for human use in the public. They run the ferry system. They ought to provide the basics, and that includes a washroom.

As I always said earlier, please do not do what the former minister did and treat these people with utter disrespect by simply sticking a porta-potty out on the end of the wharf. The former minister, the Member for Lake Melville did that. It was totally disgusting. The people were disgusted with it and of course it led ultimately to a washroom facility being built there. That is not people asking for something unusual. This is asking for what health and safety requires that people ought to have.

Let's get beyond this Third World country mentality when it comes to how we treat users of the public ferry service and find the money to put an appropriate washroom facility there so users can avail of it as and when required.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Further petitions?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of the people from Twillingate-New World Island from the District of The Isles of Notre Dame. Mr. Speaker, these people are petitioning the House of Assembly because the government basically closed down five acute care beds in their health care facility at the Notre Dame Bay Memorial Hospital. Mr. Speaker, they closed them down during the summer with a commitment that they were going to reopen those beds in the fall, which is normally what happens in every area of the Province.

In this case, when the fall came, government did not reopen the beds. In fact, they went out there, on the ground, and made a public announcement that they were going to put four restorative care beds into the hospital. People thought they were getting an enhanced service and they were getting five new beds for restorative care when all they were doing was changing the acute care beds, which were needed in the area and that people wanted to see and wanted to keep, and they re-designated them as restorative care beds. So in fact, Mr. Speaker, they did not add anything to Notre Dame Bay Memorial Hospital. They left the impression that they were going to.

In addition to that, they actually went out there and held a news conference. The member for the area and the Minister of Health stood there and told people that they were going to add restorative care beds to Notre Dame Bay Memorial Hospital when, in fact, what they were doing was taking the five acute care beds that were in the hospital, that they had shut down temporarily for a period of time, and re-designating them.

Well, that upset people, Mr. Speaker. It really upset people in that area to the point that we had thousands of people sign petitions from communities like Bay View, Herring Neck, Durrell, Moreton's Harbour, Summerford, Virgin Arm, Twillingate, Carter's Cove, Toogood Arm, Crow Head, Bridgeport, and Valley Pond. Mr. Speaker, all over the district people were really upset because they felt like they had been deceived because they were told that their acute care beds would be closed for the summer, which was not unusual. The five beds would reopen in the fall. Instead, their MHA shows up with the minister in tow, has a big news conference, and says we are going to give you five restorative care beds, when they took their very acute beds and re-designated them.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that was what they did to the people in this area. They saw it for what it was. It was very blatant and it was disrespectful to the people in the area. They need those acute care beds, they need the service, and they are petitioning the House of Assembly to have them reinstated, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my privilege again this afternoon to be able to stand and present another petition to the House of Assembly. I would like to read the prayer of the petition:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS we, the students of French Shore Academy in Port Saunders, from the Towns of River of Ponds, Hawke's Bay, Port Saunders, Port au Choix, and Eddies Cove West appreciate the facility we currently learn in; and

WHEREAS unfortunately, the sense of fairness and equality existing at school is absent on the outside due to essential services not equally available in all our towns; and

WHEREAS the lack of high-speed Internet in River of Ponds, Hawke's Bay, and Eddies Cove West puts some students, or our school, in an acceptable disadvantage at learning today in the twenty-first century;

WHEREUPON your petitioners call upon all Members of the House of Assembly to urge government to direct funding to ensure high-speed Internet services are provided in these towns to allow equality and fairness of all members of our student body.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, we realize that great strides have been made in bringing high-speed Internet services to our Province. The minister mentioned in Question Period, I believe it was, that 80 per cent of the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador now enjoy high-speed Internet, and that is great. This petition today is not on behalf of the 80 per cent, it is on behalf of the 20 per cent who do not enjoy it. We realize there are regulations that govern that, and rules and so on that we can hide behind, but the bottom line is that we have young people today, in particular, who are trying to educate themselves, who are trying to get ready for post secondary education, and they are at a great disadvantage.

Mr. Speaker, this petition that I have here today, I note that it is signed mostly by Grade 8 and Grade 9 students. I do not know if we can really appreciate what it must be like for a Grade 8 or Grade 9 student to be living today, in this day and age of technology, and not having high-speed Internet in their home. It truly is a great disadvantage, it truly is a setback. They are not interested in who is responsible, they are not interested in how much it is going to cost, they are not interested in regulations and so on, all they are interested in is the fact that when they want to go on the Internet, as students anywhere else in this Province would do, as the other 80 per cent would, they simply cannot do it.

That is why they have taken the initiative to get their petition together. That is why I am pleased this afternoon to be able to stand and present it for them. I am not sure why I need to stand, they do have a member in the House of Assembly who represents them, but for some reason he has chosen not to present it for them, and in his absence or whatever, I am pleased to stand and present it. Not only for them, but for all people throughout this Province who are finding themselves in the same situations. There are literally dozens of communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador that do not have high-speed Internet.

Mr. Speaker, it is unacceptable, and it is time that this government, with the resources that we have, with the finances that we have, with the incomes that we have, with the Budget coming down tomorrow, it is time that these students have the assurance that very soon they will be able to enjoy the same technology as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present another petition on behalf of the public sector pensioners in this Province. I presented a petition last week, I think, with over 9,000 signatures on it, and, of course, there are other petitions that have been coming in as well.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to read the prayer of the petition into the record for the House of Assembly:

The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS provincial public sector pensioners in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador contributed to a pension fund during their employment years; and

WHEREAS the provincial government was and continues to be the trustee of the pension fund; and

WHEREAS prior to 1989, government, from time to time, provided for increases in pension payments to enable pensioners to keep up with the cost of living; and

WHEREAS workers who retired in the 1990s have reduced pensions due to government financial restraints at the time; and

WHEREAS current pensioners have not received a fair and equitable pension increase for twenty-one years and are falling behind the cost of living;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to provide pension increases that will allow former provincial government employees to live in dignity after their years of contribution to the development of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues here that they have is in the 1990s, when this Province was under tremendous financial restraint, there were times when the government could not contribute to the Public Service Pension Plan. That happened consecutively for two or three years. As a result of those premiums not being paid in at that time, these pensioners feel that their income dropped below the levels that it should have been. They are asking government to review that period of time, to look at what their contributions would have been and to make the appropriate contributions now because we are in a fiscal position to be able to do that.

You have to realize, Mr. Speaker, back in 1990s that was before the days of the oil and gas industry. It was before the days when we were generating huge profits in the mining industry. It was a result of deals that were done by Liberal governments at the time, the development of the offshore oil industry, the deals that were secured around White Rose, Terra Nova, and Hibernia. It was deals like the Voisey's Bay nickel deal, Mr. Speaker, and the changes in the Mineral Resources Act that allowed for greater contributions in mining for the Province. It was all of those things that were done by Liberal Administrations which have contributed to growth in the Province today.

The government opposite, Mr. Speaker, came into power in 2003; it was like winning the jackpot. It was like winning the jackpot because within twenty-four months, Mr. Speaker, all of these revenues from these previous deals by Liberal governments started to flow. There was the ability then to start righting some of the wrongs of the past-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will begin with the Order Paper and do the one bill that is ready for first reading.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Transportation and Works, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act, Bill 29, 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 Fish Inspection Act, Bill 29, and that Bill 29 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 29 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 Transportation and Works to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act", carried. (Bill 29)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act. (Bill 29)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 29 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 29 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 29 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will proceed now on the Order Paper to the third readings.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General, that Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Support Orders Enforcement Act, 2006, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 16 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Support Orders Enforcement Act, 2006. (Bill 16)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Support Orders Enforcement Act, 2006", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 16)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 22, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Medicine In The Province, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 22 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Medicine In The Province. (Bill 22)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice Of Medicine In The Province", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 22)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Crop Insurance Act And The Livestock Insurance Act, be now read the third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 23 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Crop Insurance Act And The Livestock Insurance Act. (Bill 23)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 23 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that this bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Crop Insurance Act And The Livestock Insurance Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 23)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General, that Bill 25, An Act To Amend The Public Trustee Act, 2009, be now read a third time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Public Trustee Act, 2009. (Bill 25)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Trustee Act, 2009", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 25)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will move now into the second reading of bills. With that, I call Order 6, second reading of Bill 17.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 17, An Act Respecting The Mandatory Reporting Of Gunshot And Stab Wounds, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that Bill 17, An Act Respecting The Mandatory Reporting Of Gunshot And Stab Wounds, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Mandatory Reporting Of Gunshot And Stab Wounds". (Bill 17)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce Bill 17, An Act Respecting The Mandatory Reporting Of Gunshot And Stab Wounds. This is new legislation, Mr. Speaker. It is not an amendment; it is a completely new bill.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation will, in effect, require health care facilities and ambulance services to report that they are treating patients who have received gun shot wounds, and in certain cases, stab wounds. Obviously, as most people will realize, the request for this legislation would come in part from the police forces in our Province.

Typically, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice will get requests from outside sources, outside agencies, members of the public, various stakeholders and so on, including the police, every now and then for suggested improvements to existing legislation. We get it from lawyers and from the law society to improve existing legislation or to make new legislation. Mr. Speaker, in this case the main driving force behind this legislation will be the police forces, and understandably so.

Increasingly, both provincial police forces today are responding to incidents involving violence in our society between individuals engaged in criminal activity, and in some cases, Mr. Speaker, the individuals are seriously injured. Many times the victims are reluctant to report certain information to the police for any number of reasons. In spite of the reluctance by victims to report this information, there is still an obligation on the police forces, and the public, to investigate the crimes in the interest of public safety. It is of vital importance that this information reaches the police forces, because such violence has the potential to put people at risk. The police have a duty to ensure, where possible, that intervention and proper, appropriate investigations occur to prevent future violence and to lay criminal charges where charges are warranted.

Mr. Speaker, it is not only victims who are reluctant sometimes to provide this information but in many cases, at least in some cases, there is reluctance on the part of the health care facility to provide information. They base that reluctance on the need for patient's confidentiality and privacy matters. Certain health care people and health care facilities feel that in the interest of the patient confidentiality and privacy, they are sometimes reluctant to co-operate with the police in giving them the information that they need. Of course, the police need this information. According to the police, this is not uncommon. It is not isolated incidents and it is quite frequent that these things happen. When that happens, of course, these things have the potential to compromise police investigations and ultimately, compromise public safety. So, it is extremely important. This is an important piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in order to assist the police in investigating these types of matters, some provinces have enacted this gunshot and stab wound disclosure legislation. Legislation is important, as I mentioned, because it reports, in a timely fashion, gunshot and stab wounds to the police and these in turn, of course, expedite police investigations and police response so that immediate steps can be taken to prevent further violence and lay charges where the charges are warranted, and maybe even prevent injury or death.

This type of legislation will allow consistent reporting of violent situations involving guns or knives across the Province. It also would be consistent across the emergency health care system and will not significantly interfere with patients' privacy. The act also clarifies, Mr. Speaker, not only health care facilities but ambulance services as well will have this obligation to report these matters.

The health care facilities and the ambulance services will be under an obligation to report these matters as soon as practically possible. The legislation acknowledges that the first priority is, and has to be, the treatment of the injured person. The reporting requirement will not and must not interfere with the primary obligation, which is to provide adequate patient treatment and patient care. That is dealt with in the act under section 4.

Mr. Speaker, the act will simply require the health care facility or the ambulance service to verbally report, under section 3, certain basic information to the police: the person's name if that person's name is known; the fact that the person has been treated for a gunshot or a stab wound; the name and the location of the health care facility; and, in the case of an ambulance service, where the treatment occurred; and any other information that the regulations may require.

The legislation will apply to hospitals, doctors' offices, clinics, and ambulance services. Another thing this legislation does, it will protect, from liability, any person who reports this information or is acting in good faith under the act or the regulations. So, there is no liability on a person reporting that information as long as they are reporting in good faith and for the purposes to which the act and the regulations were brought into force.

Mr. Speaker, as would be expected in a piece of legislation of this kind, there has been extensive consultation with the regional health authorities, with the ambulance services, with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Newfoundland and Labrador and with the Association of Registered Nurses in the Province. Mr. Speaker, all those groups were consulted, and they are all very supportive of this initiative.

I also can tell members of this House that similar legislative provisions exist in other provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Quebec. So, we are really behind the times in bringing this legislation in.

In summary, let me say that this proposed legislation will, in our view, enhance public safety by increasing the consistency of reporting these violent injuries. The objective is to provide the police force with every opportunity and to respond in a more timely way to high-risk incidents involving violence with firearms or knives.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is a very simple piece of legislation. It does not need a lot of comment. I am pleased to introduce Bill 17, and I request the support of all hon. members in this House in the debate to promote this piece of legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I certainly would like to have a few words about Bill 17. The minister used the word: simple. It may be simple in many respects, but there are some concerns that this type of legislation raises, and I would certainly like to take an opportunity, if for only information's sake, to get some of those concerns out there in the public view. I think this was not a slam-dunk, as we would say, by any means.

Yes, it needs to be done; yes, the Opposition will be supporting, but there are some concerns. It is not all so obvious, as the minister might have one believe, that we need to do this. There are some legitimate concerns, and I am surprised the minister did not point some of those out and some of the statistical information that exists.

It is true, for example, that we are behind the times when it comes to having this type of legislation, because it deals not only with gunshot wounds, it deals with stab wounds as well. We do not have either. We do not have any legislation until this Bill 17 which would deal with either of those, gunshot or stab wounds. Some people may think: What are we getting on with in the House of Assembly when we are talking about a piece of legislation? Do we really have enough stab wounds, enough injuries, enough crime that involves gunshots and stab wounds that we need to have this piece of legislation?

The number that we might have is irrelevant. The bottom line is you need the legislative authority if you do have such an event, whether it be one or whether it be 1,000, to be able to assist the police and do the job that they need to do. Other jurisdictions do have it; for example, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta. Now, they have similar legislation to this one, Bill 17, dealing with gunshot and stab wounds. Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Quebec have legislation, but theirs only deal with gunshot wounds

In Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Quebec, I do not know why they have chosen not to deal with stab wounds, and I do not know if the minister is aware of anything. In the research that we did, we did not reveal any particular reason that these jurisdictions had not done it. To think that Ontario and Quebec, in particular, where organized crime is a big issue in those two provinces and they have a major population base compared to a place like Newfoundland and Labrador, yet their legislation only deal with gunshot wounds and not stab wounds. Maybe it is just a case that they need their legislation updated, but it deals with both.

The Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics has some very important relevant statistics for this debate as well. They report that over the last three decades, guns and implements have been the most common type of weapon in a homicide, guns and stabbing implements. In 2009, for example, 36 per cent of Canadian homicides, for a total of 210 victims, were killed by stabbing. So, 36 per cent of the homicides in Canada were done by stabbing in 2009. I would have thought it would have been the reverse of that, but 36 per cent died by way of stabbing and 30 per cent by way of gunshot. That gives you 66 per cent of the homicides that took place in 2009 were by either gunshot or by stabbing. So, it gives some indication that it is a major factor when it comes to homicide.

That is just in the case of homicides. This act will apply, of course, to all kinds of crimes. It does not necessarily have to be a homicide in order to apply. It could be any serious crime, if there was a stab wound and if there was a gunshot wound, that it would apply to, not just homicides. The statistics that I just referenced apply just to homicides. It shows that in homicides it is certainly a major factor for gunshots and stabbing: 66 per cent.

There are some concerns raised from some quarters. Some might think this is only of a theoretical basis and we ought not to trouble our heads about it, because the law might be basically good, we should rubber stamp it, get it done, and get it on because everybody has it. Just because other jurisdictions have it does not mean that we necessarily have to rubber stamp it and do it without consideration, or at least let the public be aware by way of debate that there are some concerns that are out there when you consider this type of legislation.

For example, when this type of legislation was first passed in Ontario, it was assessed four years later by Ontario physicians who did a survey. One disturbing type of incident which was reported was that individuals who had been the victim of either a gunshot or a stab wound – there seemed to be a trend that they decided not seek medical treatment for that injury, because they were afraid of getting the perpetrator in trouble. If you have an injury, a gunshot or a stab wound, and you go to the hospital, and of course if you reported it, the concern was that they would leave themselves open to some form of reprisal.

Now that was in Ontario and we might be naïve here and think, well that is the big boys play up there and the organized crime for example. We have organized crime here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Do not kid yourselves; there is organized crime here in this Province functioning as we speak. Some people might think we are still a small, little jurisdiction here in Newfoundland and Labrador. I can assure you that from my days being in Justice, and that was some ten years ago, we had organized crime then and you can rest assured we have organized crime here now. It seems like the smaller the world gets globally, the more likely all jurisdictions are likely to be impacted by it, especially when it comes to the drug trade, for example, in this particular Province.

As was indicated, you started out with something good, for example, you pass a piece of legislation because if someone comes in with a stab wound, you are making the authorities report it – or a gunshot wound. But yet, people found out that they would rather not go to a hospital. If you went to the hospital and therefore it ended up being reported, you felt that there was going to be a reprisal taken against you. You might have an opposite effect that once you aware of this you will not go to the hospital because you are afraid you are going to get someone in trouble or someone is going to take it out on you for them ending up finding out about what you reported. That was a backwards consequence of that particular piece of legislation.

The other thing is you might wonder when it comes to the health care facilities at least, the ambulance operators are a bit different, but under section 40 of our Personal Health Information Act, there is already a statement in there which talks about the disclosure of information. I think that should have been pointed out as well, although we are going to have this new act. I will just read it for the record, it says, a heath care provider: "may disclose personal health information without the consent of the individual…where the custodian reasonably believes that disclosure is required (a) to prevent or reduce a risk of serious harm to the mental or physical health or safety of the individual… or (b) for public health or public safety."

Health care providers already have the power to alert justice professionals of a gunshot wound or a stab wound. Even without consent of the victim they can do that already under section 40 of the Personal Health Information Act. Particularly where they believe that safety to the particular individual or the public in general would be jeopardized should they not disclose that information. This would cover any situation where a gunshot or a stab wound was nefariously inflicted. There are some concerns here, we already have certain pieces of legislation which can handle this but the issues as I say of reprisal do come to bear on occasion.

We certainly hope that this legislation, by making it mandatory on the ambulance drivers and the health care providers, will not deter victims from seeking health care as a result of their injuries simply because they feel that there might be a reprisal.

Those are just a few comments, Mr. Speaker. We think on the whole – albeit things may have some possible unintended, negative consequences – for the most part it is a good piece of legislation to have. As we say, we had some backup there previously anyway when it comes to the Privacy Act and what health care providers can do but now ambulance operators as well are going to be encompassed by this particular piece of legislation as well.

I guess it is like everything, you have to start somewhere. We are starting now with the piece of legislation. It will become law, it will be the first time, the motivation and intent is good, i.e., to assist the police when it comes to investigations in crime or again in public safety issues, not only for the crime itself because there are a lot of concerns about health care providers who figure we are health care providers, we are not promoters of the justice system. A lot of medical doctors, for example, and whatever strongly feel that keep the two separate and apart. We will practice the medicine but do not pass laws that get us intertwined in the justice system inappropriately. If you police want to take powers upon yourselves to have investigative powers, if you can find another way we would prefer not to have you encroach upon what we do. We are here to look after health; you let the police look after the investigation, the criminal investigation piece.

Sometimes the two have to cross and in this particular case it is an example where it has to cross because an ambulance operator, or a medical provider, or a health care provider may well be the person to whom a victim goes or even a perpetrator sometimes will receive the injury and therefore it gets to the attention of the police. The overall purpose here is to make sure that nothing further happens. Not only is it used as an investigative tool so that the police can find out who was injured, what their name was, where it happened and provide, probably, some witness and follow-up for an investigation but it may also – if you determine that on a quick time basis and you find out in short order who did it, and who is injured – it may prevent further injury or a further crime from taking place.

The motivation is good here and I am sure, over the course of years, if it provides a problem with the health care providers, or with the ambulance operators, or some unexpected circumstance were to arise the minister is well aware, these same stakeholders will come back and report as to the circumstance, or the police find that it is not working for some reason, for example, so we might well find ourselves here sometime down the road amending it again based upon experience. That is how the system should work but we need the foundation in order to find out that it is going to be possible to do this at all.

I am just wondering if, when we get to the Committee stage, the minister might provide a commentary – I notice in section 7 here which deals with the regulatory piece and regulations that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations, and they give a whole list of things that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council will be able to do by way of regulation. Section 7(g) references: "exempting persons or classes of persons from the requirements of this act and the regulations". I am just wondering if there has been any thought put into it already. It seems like, to put a particular clause like that in there that you are already contemplating exempting someone. I am wondering if that is the case, that there has been some contemplation, even at this point, that we might exempt somebody, or certain classes of people from it, or is that just a standard phrase that exists in the order jurisdictions as well. If there is any particular example that the minister might be able to provide for purposes of information it would certainly be appreciated as well.

Those are all the comments I have, Mr. Speaker, and we will, as I say, be voting in favour of this particular act, but some of these concerns about fear of reprisal, the fact that we have not had it here before and we need to review the thing on an ongoing basis to see if it is working here as intended certainly should be kept in mind and subject to review in the future.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is pleased to recognize the hon. the Member for Topsail.

MR. DAVIS: Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you for recognizing me this afternoon and giving me the opportunity to take a few minutes to debate the bill, An Act Respecting The Mandatory Reporting Of Gunshot And Stab Wounds, a new piece of legislation, has been referenced by the minister and the member opposite who have already spoken on this particular bill.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, is a brand new piece of legislation, that while it will not have broad reaching effects to the general public, it can have a very important and very beneficial effect under certain circumstances. This bill applies to an ambulance service and an "(a) "ambulance service" means a service for the conveyance of persons requiring medical attention". It also affects a health care facility which under this particular piece of legislation means a facility operated by an authority established under the Regional Health Authorities Act, a place where treatment is provided by a medical practitioner as defined by the Medical Act and a health care facility prescribed in the regulations.

This piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, does exactly what the title indicates. It requires the mandatory reporting of gunshot and stab wounds. With the case of gunshots, all gunshots would be required to be reported, but there is an exception when it comes to stab wounds. Under this piece of legislation a "(d) "stab wound" means (i) a wound caused by a knife or other sharp or pointed instrument, or (ii) another type or class of wound prescribed in the regulations but does not include a stab wound reasonably believed to be self-inflicted or unintentionally inflicted." People receive accidental cuts and injuries on a daily basis throughout the Province, Mr. Speaker. Under the case of such an accidental or self-infliction of a wound, it is not mandatory that those types of wounds be reported.

The intention of this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, is that in the case of a person who has received a gunshot wound or a stab wound as a result of a criminal act or a violent act, when that person is treated in a health care facility it is very important for the police to have certain pieces of information as early as possible. The Personal Health Information Act was not intended to interfere or prohibit with the easy access of police to certain information or to interfere with an investigation by police. It was intended to ensure the privacy of individuals.

In this case, the medical history or medical privacy of a person will not be compromised in any way. This act will allow for the mandatory reporting of a person's name to a police officer or a peace officer, meaning a member of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary or a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It means the person's name, if known, will be provided, "(b) the fact that the injured person is being treated or has been treated for a gunshot or a stab wound; (c) in the case of a health care facility, the name and location of the health care facility; (d) in the case of an ambulance service… the location where the treatment occurs".

If an ambulance goes to a particular location, responds to a call tonight, if they find a person who has sustained a gunshot wound, it is required that the ambulance service provide not only the name of the person but also the location where it took place. Again, the requirement for this is in the best interest of policing, in the best interest of an investigation, which is done in the best interest of the person who has sustained the injury.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, in going back to my own experiences, again in policing; there have been times when a person has arrived at a health care facility with such an injury. Under the Personal Health Information Act, the health care provider, the physician, or the facility would be prohibited from giving police the necessary information so that they can initiate or begin their investigation. That they would have the information of the person's identity or where the treatment took place, the location in the case of an ambulance of where the treatment took place, that is beneficial to the investigation. They need that information.

The time that such an important and serious investigation is delayed - the time of that investigation being delayed can be very critical to an investigation. It can have profound changes on the outcome of that investigation. It is so important for the police to get that information as soon as possible. This particular piece of legislation will allow for health professionals, facilities, and health providers to provide that information to the police without compromising any other law or piece of legislation.

It also includes, in this piece of legislation - there may be a time when a health care provider or a doctor provides a piece of information on an honest belief that the person had received or was the victim of a stab wound, in the case of an assault, an assault with a weapon or an aggravated assault, or other similar circumstances, and they provide that information to the police. If they were to find out, subsequent to that, it was self-inflicted or it was received in another manner, then those people are protected. Those people are protected by this legislation when they act in good faith. They will not be held liable for providing that information to the police if it turns out that the circumstances were different then it had appeared to be at the time they provided it.

There was some interesting discussion on crimes and violence. We know, Mr. Speaker, that there is a correlation between the drug trade and violence. There is quite often a correlation between the business of illegal dealing and selling of drugs, and violence. We know as well, Statistics Canada have told us that in a ten-year period from 1998 to 2008 there was an increase in the report of assaults in Newfoundland and Labrador; a very significant increase, about 62 per cent in that ten-year period.

Newfoundland and Labrador was not the only province to see such increases. New Brunswick, as an example, saw a 69 per cent increase; Nova Scotia, a 41 per cent increase, to do comparisons within Atlantic Canada. These are on incidents of aggravated assaults. In matters of assault with a weapon or where a person was assaulted and had received bodily harm, in those cases in Newfoundland in that same ten-year period between 1998 and 2008, we saw a 54 per cent increase. Interestingly enough, even though we saw such a boom in our economy, we saw such increases in growth and we know that quite often those types of economic booms come with an increase in violence, even though we know that and we had a 54 per cent increase, other provinces saw equal or larger increases. For example, Prince Edward Island had a 56 per cent increase; Nova Scotia 110 per cent; New Brunswick 59 per cent increase; Quebec 67 per cent. Other provinces saw very significant increases in matters of assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm.

Mr. Speaker, interestingly enough, when you look at 2008 to 2009, there was actually small decreases. We saw there was a decrease in robberies. According to Statistics Canada, there was a decrease in robberies. In overall, total violent crime there was a decrease as well. We saw some decreases in that one-year period but when you are looking at statistics, at these types of information, we always have to do so with caution. We always should be very cautious when we are trying to interpret and read statistics because in this case, again, it is a fairly small period from 2008 to 2009 when we saw a 7 per cent decrease in the incidents of serious assaults reported according to Statistics Canada. We saw a 16 per cent decrease in robberies but we know that is a snapshot in time. A six-month period after the period of these statistics, there may have been an increase to offset them. So it is with caution that we should always look at those types of statistics.

So, it is with caution that we should always look at those types of statistics. Having said that, it is decisive to say, and as my colleague across the referred to earlier, that there is crime, violent crime, and gunshots and stabbings that occur from time to time in Newfoundland and Labrador. When a person sustains such an injury and seeks medical attention or is transported for medical attention, it is very important for the police to be able to act on that investigation as early as possible. That is the intention of this bill.

Other provinces that have been referred to have similar legislation, Mr. Speaker; British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have all enacted gunshot and stab wound disclosure legislation. Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Quebec have limited their legislations to the reporting of gunshots. Again, my colleague from across the House has referred to a study that was done on Ontario's legislation. Ontario was the first jurisdiction to introduce such legislation – it was actually Bill 110; it was introduced in September of 2005 – on the mandatory reporting of gunshot wounds.

Now, I had a look through a study that was conducted in 2008. I do not know if it was the same study that was referred to earlier or not. This study that I reviewed and looked at suggests to me that there was overall support and acceptance of the law by not only the police and the public, but also by physicians. It indicates that although they found – there was anecdotal evidence of some altered behaviour by shooting victims – the majority of physicians and the public responded did not perceive any impact on patient-physician relationships. There is an indication of a very small number, a very small number, about 4 per cent, of emergency physicians had indicated that they had seen gunshot wounds reported that their actual reporting of those gunshots had been delayed. Not all of those cases, in not all of those cases was the person aware of the legislation, it was for a different reason. So, in most of them, I think maybe five or six out of seven, they were aware of the legislation, but in one or two of the cases, the person who delayed the response actually was not aware of the legislation.

That is a fairly small number, in 4 per cent; if you think about the cases where the reporting of the gunshot wound, in this case, in Ontario under Bill 110, may have benefited the investigation, the ability of the police to investigate. That is not contained in this particular study. There is no evidence contained in that study to suggest if the legislation in Ontario was of benefit to the investigation for the safety of the person who had received the injuries, or maybe in the safety of others who may have been put at risk because of circumstances that existed that led to the assault on the individual who sought the treatment.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think based on my past and my experience in policing, knowing the difficulties that police encounter and have encountered from time to time, that this is a good piece of legislation. Both the RNC and the RCMP agree with that, have been consulted on this, and support the legislation. I will as well, and I encourage all Members of the House to do likewise.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Opposition House Leader for his comments and my colleague from Topsail in support of this bill. As both members mentioned, this is a significant piece of legislation. It is a small bill but it is a pretty significant one. It addresses a very important social issue in helping police forces carry out their work.

I have just a couple of responses to some of the points that there were raised. With respect to the hon. Opposition House Leader's comments that victims may fear reprisal by seeking medical treatment for gunshot wounds or stab wounds, the experience with the other acts in other jurisdiction find that people who are wounded by gunshot wounds or stab wounds are not afraid to go to hospital for treatment. As a matter of fact I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, in most cases they have no choice in order for their own personal health. The four jurisdictions that have mandatory legislation have not found any issues with that particular piece of legislation.

The member mentioned section 40 of the Personal Health and Information Act where people in health care facilities already have certain discretions to disclose information to justice professionals. The key word in that legislation is, of course, "may" and this act makes it mandatory. The Personal Health and Information Act, Mr. Speaker, is much more restrictive and goes well beyond the reporting because it gets into situations where the patient is being lawfully detained, for example, in a correctional facility or in a psychiatric facility, or if the individual needs particular health care for the individual, or if the individual has been placed in custody under some other piece of legislation.

So that is a good piece of legislation too, Mr. Speaker, but this bill will make it mandatory to report to the police and it is very much in tune with the police intention of public safety and to curb violence and avoid criminal activity.

Mr. Speaker, he raised the issue of why some acts did not deal with stab wounds. Our information, Mr. Speaker, that there is some concern with the definition of stab wound. We have defined it in our act. It says a stab wound "…does not include a stab wound reasonably believe to be self-inflicted or unintentionally inflicted." I think because of the confusion surrounding these types of wounds, that some jurisdictions opted to leave it out.

He also mentioned organized crime and that organized crime back in his day as Minister of Justice was in this Province and it certainly is. A good example, Mr. Speaker, under Operation Razorback, which was an operation conducted by our RNC, the first time in this Province that charges were laid in our courts under organized crime. It speaks for the professionalism and development of our police forces as well.

Under regulation (g) he raised the question of what might be involved in the Lieutenant-Governor in Council's ability to make regulations. Regulation (g) says: "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations… (g) exempting persons or classes of persons from the requirements of this Act and the regulations". This regulation, Mr. Speaker, is a little bit open-ended but will address certain people in the health care facilities who would not be mandated – emergency personnel, for example. Emergency personnel would not be mandated by this provision.

Mr. Speaker, again I thank the hon. members for their support of this bill and I ask you now to move this to second reading.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Mandatory Reporting Of Gunshot And Stab Wounds. (Bill 17)

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


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

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Mandatory Reporting Of Gunshot And Stab Wounds", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 17)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will now call Order 9, second reading of Bill 27.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 27, An Act Respecting Forestry Professions, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that Bill 27, An Act Respecting Forestry Professions, now be read the second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Forestry Professions". (Bill 27)

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

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to speak to Bill 27, An Act Respecting Forestry Professions.

The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to allow the establishment of an Association of Registered Professional Foresters for our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; to outline the requirements of that registration; and to provide for the protection of the titles: Registered Professional Forester, Registered Forester, Professional Forester, and Forester-in-Training. Also, fourthly, Mr. Speaker, to provide for a disciplinary process should the association find somebody to be in default or in conflict with the bylaws that the association will set up.

Mr. Speaker, the forest resource is a vital component of the provincial economy. Most of the Province's forest industry is concentrated on 5.2 million hectares of forested land located within the insular portion of the Province. The Labrador portion of the Province also has significant forest resources, totalling 18 million hectares of productive forest land. The industry is a very big industry in our Province. It employs, directly and indirectly, 5,500 people. It is the social and economic backbone of over eighty communities in our Province and provides over $250 million annually into the provincial economy. That is a quarter of a billion dollars.

In 1996, a group of Newfoundland and Labrador foresters, in partnership with the Canadian Institute of Forestry, created the Registered Professional Foresters Association of Newfoundland and Labrador; the RPFNL, Registered Professional Foresters of Newfoundland and Labrador. The professional association has seventy members who are employed in various organizations throughout our Province. These Professional Foresters are men and women who provide services in relation to the development, the management, conservation and sustainability of forests, forested land, and forest resources. They have jobs in forest management planning; they have jobs in silviculture, and forest harvesting operations, and forestry consultancy, to name just a few of the titles that they would have.

Membership in the Registered Professional Foresters Association, Mr. Speaker, is voluntary. That is an important point for people to recognize, who may be listening to this debate out in the Province through the use of the media that we provide the debate in. The membership of this association is a voluntary membership. Individuals may still practice in forestry outside the legislation; however, professional designation will certify that this is a professional group with professional standards, and thus beneficial to the industry, to the public, and to the foresters.

Currently, Mr. Speaker, there are seven provinces in Canada that have Professional Foresters designation, and this designation has been around for awhile. The first Registered Professional Foresters Association was formed in Quebec in 1921; some ninety years ago. That was followed by the Province of British Columbia registering an association in 1947. Since that time, five other provinces recognized the importance of having their forests managed by professionals. The most recent province to introduce self-regulating legislation for the professional forestry was the Province of Saskatchewan in 2006.

The foresters association in the Province is a member of the Canadian Federation of Professional Foresters Associations. This federation, Mr. Speaker, is comprised of eight provincial foresters associations across Canada. Currently, Newfoundland and Labrador is the only association that does not have formal legislation. The Canadian Federation advocates for issues identified by its members as having national importance or consequence, issues such as labour mobility and standards of forestry education.

The legislation is for occupational regulation of Professional Foresters and outlines a framework for self-governance. Self-regulatory legislation ensures the competence, the independence, the professional conduct and the integrity of the members. Standards of education, qualifications, and professional development are prescribed to ensure members are qualified and remain competent within their area of practice. A Code of Ethics and a disciplinary process ensure that members are held accountable for their actions.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, benefits, as this legislation affirms government's commitment to the forest resource and associated values of the Province. It will also fulfill commitments as outlined in the National Forest Strategy, (1992–1998), Sustainable Forests: a Canadian commitment. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, will protect the title of foresters and therefore differentiate between those individuals practicing forestry who are not a part of the registered association. Having self-regulating occupations also helps labour mobility issues. Being a part of a global marketplace may help with attraction and retention of qualified foresters.

The benefit to businesses in the forest industry is that if they choose to hire members of the association, they can demonstrate to their clients that their practitioners are well-trained and well-qualified. Pursuing the less restrictive right to title benefits both non-registered foresters and the industry, in that flexibility remains the practice outside the scope of the legislation. In other words, Mr. Speaker, it is voluntary whether or not you want to join.

This legislation is considered compliant with the policy direction of government concerning self-regulating professions. We believe the impact on the general public will be positive. Under the Professional Foresters Act, it is the Registered Professional Foresters Association of Newfoundland and Labrador's responsibility to uphold the public interest respecting the practice of professional forestry by ensuring the competence, the independence, the professional conduct, and the integrity of its members. They will have established standards of education and qualifications to make sure members are qualified and remain up-to-date on changes in their field. The Professional Foresters Act and the association bylaws, including codes of conduct and standards of practice, will govern their members. This will help ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador forests are in good hands and that their members act in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, by way of just a few general comments if I could. Bill 27, An Act Respecting Forestry Professions, is a bill that we are bringing before the House to formalize the establishment of the title of a forestry professional. It will allow people who are engaged in the industry in a professional way to voluntarily sign up for membership in this association if they so wish.

There will be a number of rules that will be developed by the association, a set of bylaws, a constitution, those kinds of things that any self-regulating occupation would have. The members who set themselves up to be members of this association will have to follow those rules and regulations. If they do not, if there are some complaints made, if somebody believes they are not following the rules and regulations or not being the professionals they should be, there are ways they can be investigated. There are disciplinary procedures, there are codes of ethics, and there are appeal processes. There are things that can be used to determine whether or not the members are in compliance with the goals and objectives of the Professional Foresters Association.

Mr. Speaker, I have said it already, but it is important again for me to say this is meant to be voluntary. We are not forcing people who currently work in the forest industry to join this association. It is an association that can be set up that people can join if they so wish. We believe it will bring benefits to the members. We believe it will bring benefits to the Province and to the employers who employ people who are members of this association. It is not something that people are required to do or mandated to do by the government; it is a voluntary association.

People who have degrees in forestry, who have gone and studied and done a degree in a forestry management program would be eligible for joining this, or people who have some combination of experience and education. It is just not restricted to people who would have degrees, but it would be open to anybody who is engaged in the practice of forestry who would like to be able to maintain high standards of professional conduct, want to let the public know that they have a certain level of knowledge, want to promote and improve the forest industry, and want to foster professional forestry practices within the Province.

Mr. Speaker, by way of my opening remarks, I will conclude my remarks there. I look forward to hearing other people on this particular act and hearing what it is they have to say with regard to establishing a self-regulating model for those individuals who are interested in the practice of forestry. Should there be any questions that arise, I will do my best in my concluding remarks, when I get an opportunity to stand a bit later, to try to answer any questions that may be posed.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is always a privilege to stand and speak on any legislation in the House of Assembly and, certainly, this afternoon would be no exception in terms of speaking for a few moments to Bill 27, An Act Respecting Forestry Professions, the Foresters Act.

The forestry is another one of our renewable resources in our Province that we are fortunate to have. For many generations, it has been the means of a livelihood to many of our people and families. We want to see that continue for some years to come. Anything that helps to formalize and bring structure to the industry, generally speaking, then we would see as a good thing.

This particular bill, as the minister has already stated, sets up an Association of Registered Professional Foresters of Newfoundland and Labrador. He has noted that it is voluntary and, I guess, that is important to understand. Our understanding is that it provides protection for three or four titles at least, those being the Registered Professional Forester, the Registered Forester, Professional Forester, and the Forester-in-Training.

There are several provinces, if not most provinces in Canada, I believe it might be seven, which already have similar acts. As we bring our act into legislation, then we would be the eighth. Basically, all of these members who are associated with the associations, if you will, are also members of the Canadian Federation of Professional Foresters Associations. There is always strength in numbers and certainly in exchange of information, ideas, in being able to access a larger network of economies and so on, then being part of something larger is always a good thing in most cases.

It is key to note that Bill 27 sets up a right to title, not a right to privilege. My understanding of that, Mr. Speaker, is that it is kind of a baby step first kind of thing in terms that the Province will have a look at the right to practice in the future. It takes us back I believe, back into the 1990s probably, when the process for drafting this bill really began. It has taken some time to come which is not uncommon with most legislation. My understanding again is that there are currently around seventy identified foresters in the Province. That number seems to be low. I am not exactly sure, but there is probably an expectation that it may increase as this piece of legislation, this bill, is passed and the process is clarified.

I would like to speak for a few moments, Mr. Speaker, just about our industry in general from a perspective of the forestry. I have looked at some on the government Web site and printed off some of the information in terms of the economic report for 2010 I believe it was. The Province's forestry sector estimated for 2009, reflecting on that year, it was estimated that about $250 million of product was produced. That included newsprint, lumber, and value-added production as well.

What is interesting to note - and the minister, I am certain, made mention of that number already - that basically the industry pretty much directly employed some 5,500 people. That being the case, the indirect spinoff of that is very significant. The value-added enterprises in terms of paper production, saw milling, woods contracting, garages, repairs to heavy equipment and so many other things that are all a part of that industry, it is certainly not a small industry by any means.

We realize that this sector has experienced great challenges in recent years. The demand for newsprint has been declining, in the United States in particular. It has been at a rate, I believe, of approximately about 10 per cent per year and it seems to continue to decline. Mr. Speaker, what is interesting to note is that of the North American newsprint business about 60 per cent of that newsprint has come from Canada. Obviously, as that business has decreased, we have felt the impact of that. The result, I guess, as we know, is that we have seen two of our paper mills close, we have seen reductions in Corner Brook where they are now running, I believe, with two paper machines. Given the number of people employed in the industry and the spinoff employment and so on that is also associated with it, these drastic decreases have certainly had significant impacts in our economy.

Again, all of our districts are dear to our hearts. When I stand to speak on something, I try to bring it province-wide in cases where I can, but, certainly, the Northern Peninsula has really been impacted by the loss of the newsprint industry and business in recent years.

In terms of the forestry zones or areas, when we look at Areas 17 and 18, we know that right now these areas are really struggling trying to identify what their future is in terms of opportunity. There was a conference in St. Paul's just last week that talked about some of the other opportunities and so on. Often we have a tendency to focus on the big thing, I guess, in terms of what the economic potential is, but then there are other things that really are around us. The industry, I guess the Province in general, but certainly that area of the Province, is looking for ways to diversify, for ways to continue to be an important part of it.

I remember travelling the Northern Peninsula as many have done, but I have made a lot of trips back and forth there and you would always meet these big wood trucks coming to and fro, particularly going north on the Northern Peninsula, and there would be that shot of wind and wood debris and so on. You felt probably, at times, that it was a bit of a nuisance, but it is absent today. It really changes our world. It changes our economy. It changes the opportunities that we have.

Some of the statistics that I saw in research, just to speak to this bill for a few moments, show that in 1997 we shipped approximately 19 million tons of newsprint to North America. In 2009, that was down about 7.5 per cent. I realize in 2009, in and of itself, there was about a 28 per cent decrease. It was not a good year. It has rebounded, I believe, in 2010 somewhat. Of course, the buyback of the Corner Brook Pulp and Paper timber rights by the government certainly has consequences to it and so on. Just some background in terms of what is taking place in the industry, generally speaking.

In 1990, a new Forestry Act was proclaimed, which changed the management focus from timber management to managing the forests for timber while being consistent with other resource management objectives and so on. Of course, involved in that as well is making sure that we have sound environmental practice, because those of us who live close to the forest industry know that the environmental piece of it was not always all that important. It is good to see that these things have tightened up; it has become important to those involved in the industry. We have seen where they have been mandated to establish planning teams and so on in forest management districts across the Province. All of these things are good things. I would expect that as we bring in Bill 27, that this will be something that will be seen as not just another process but something that can be effective, something that can help in the administration, in the development, in the further management and so on of our forestry sectors.

Mr. Speaker, again, just one note I would bring to the minister's attention in terms of, it is kind of a legal position I suppose. Section 30 of the bill directs: Where the professional conduct committee believes that the respondent to an investigation may be guilty of a criminal offence, the committee is obligated to report its findings to the head of the association.

Then when we look at section 31, the very next section, Mr. Speaker, it goes on to talk about: A judge directing that the respondent be suspended on application from the association. However, unlike the requirement that the committee report criminal behaviour to the association head, there is no requirement here that the association head actually report that activity to a judge or to legal authority. It almost seems as though as the action goes up the process, if you will, it leaves open the possibility for the association, perhaps, to retain criminal information about its members without reporting it. Probably the minister could speak to that a little later on. Whether it is a big deal or not I do not know, but it is something that, in terms of our research people and as we sat with this bill, looked at it and so on, it basically shows somewhat of a gap, if you will, in the logic between section 30 and section 31, whereas the association has basically retained the power to control information, release it only at its own discretion. That is the interpretation that we have, if the minister could correct that.

As I said, as that information moves up the ladder within the association obviously, but not necessarily outside, that would be a concern for us. We would not want professional associations for engineers, doctors, or lawyers to have that power. I do not know if they actually do or if they do not, but, nevertheless, we would not want them to have that kind of power because, depending on the crime, we would not want them continuing to work as professionals in that area and so on. I guess the question is, are we going to let the foresters have a lower level of scrutiny, is essentially what I would be asking in that particular section? Probably the minister could just make a point of that and respond to that, we certainly would appreciate it.

The forestry industry in Newfoundland and Labrador has changed. As I said, we have rebounded to some degree in terms of some of the things that have happened. As I said, in my area on the Northern Peninsula today there are a lot of question marks around the industry, a lot of concerns about where it is going, generally speaking, and a lot of investments have been made; 5,500 people are working in the industry. I know there are 250 people or so right now who are not sure if they are going to be working this year along the coast, and that would be of concern for us. While it does not directly relate to Bill 27, it is a concern in the industry in general.

Mr. Speaker, that is about all I would say on this particular bill. I will wait to hear others speak, and I appreciate the opportunity this afternoon to hear the minister respond again a little later on.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister Responsible for Forestry and Agrifoods.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand in the House this afternoon to speak, just for a few minutes, on Bill 27, which is An Act Respecting Forestry Professions.

Mr. Speaker, you are looking a little different today. It is a good look for you, Mr. Speaker. I think the –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Relevance?

MR. KENT: Well, Mr. Speaker, there is a fair impact to the forestry industry in your district, so I think it is very relevant on some level. Anyway, back to the matter at hand. I think the minister has done a great job of providing an overview of this legislation.

The bill does a number of things, Mr. Speaker. Essentially, it allows us to establish the Association of Registered Professional Foresters of Newfoundland and Labrador. It provides requirements for registration and it provides protection for a number of titles, as the previous speaker indicated: Registered Professional Forester, Registered Forester, Professional Forester, and even Forester-in-Training. It also provides for a disciplinary process as well.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation has certainly been in the works for a while. Consultation with foresters in Newfoundland and Labrador has actually been ongoing since about 2006. I think the result here is rather positive. I think what we are presenting today is a good piece of legislation that is consistent with what we have seen in a number of other jurisdictions across Canada, as the minister outlined.

When we talk about forestry professions, what we are really talking about is the application of scientific principles for the management of forest ecosystems. Professional Foresters are the women and men who are involved in guiding forest management. They provide services in relation to the development, management, conservation and sustainability of forests, forested land and forest resources. They may have jobs in forest management planning, silviculture, harvesting operations, and even consulting services. There are a number of professions that are certainly impacted by this legislation.

In Newfoundland and Labrador foresters first were organized to create a professional association in 1996. In fact, we have been part of the Canadian Federation of Professional Foresters Associations since that time. There are actually eight provinces in Canada that are a part of that national association.

This legislation ensures that there is going to be a high level of integrity, professional conduct, and independence and competence associated with those who are members of this new association. There are high standards for education, qualifications, professional development and I think it is healthy for these professions to have these kinds of standards.

Right now, there are about seventy Registered Professional Foresters in Newfoundland and Labrador. We suspect, as a result of introducing this legislation and formalizing our association, that number will likely close to double in short order. There are a number of ways that somebody will be able to become a Registered Professional Forester in Newfoundland and Labrador. For instance, somebody could have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Forestry or somebody could have spent seven years in a related position in the field and then pass a policy exam that would allow them admittance into the association.

The association will do a number of things that I think will be good for the forestry industry and for the management of forestry in our Province. The association will establish and maintain high standards of professional ethics and it will also assure the general public of the knowledge, the skill, the proficiency and competency of members who are involved in the professional practice of forestry. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, the association will also promote and improve the knowledge and skill and proficiency of members in all matters that relate to the professional practice of forestry.

This is a big deal for Newfoundland and Labrador. We have twenty-three million hectares of forested land in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is sizable, Mr. Speaker. I just want to reference the comments of the Member for The Straits & White Bay North who commented on this legislation; we are certainly as a government deeply committed to the sustainability and further development of the forestry industry in this Province. Granted there have been challenges in recent years, but I think this legislation is just one example of our extensive commitment to the industry. This legislation actually solidifies the role of Professional Foresters in managing our Province's forest resources.

A forest resource in this Province today; our forest resource is currently valued at $250 million annually and it sustains, as the member pointed out, approximately 5,500 direct and indirect jobs. It is fair to say that the forest resource in Newfoundland and Labrador continues to be a very vital component of the provincial economy.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation contains a number of things. It defines the structure for the association. It establishes objectives for membership and meeting requirements and so on. It outlines a governing structure. It provides direction in the establishment of bylaws and regulations that set a course for governance and administration for the association. It also protects the titles that have been mentioned a couple of times in this debate. It also outlines the mechanisms for a disciplinary process. That really does ensure accountability for members that are involved. It even includes an offence and penalty section that is really quite similar to what you would see for other self-regulated professions. I think this legislation is very consistent in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, as I wrap up, I would say that this legislation really affirms our government's commitment to the sustainable, long-term management of the forest resources in Newfoundland and Labrador. It also brings this Province very much in line with seven other provinces that have similar legislation in place. We will continue to be an active and contributing member to the national association and to the forestry industry overall.

So, Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to speak in support of Bill 27, and I encourage other members to support this bill as well.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am very happy to have an opportunity to speak to Bill 27, An Act Respecting Forestry Professions. On the surface, it looks like a very straightforward bill, and it is of course. It is legislation to govern the Association of Registered Professional Foresters of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think what is really quite exciting is that we are finally getting such legislation to create a legislative professional association. I find it very interesting that after such a long time of our being involved in forestry in this Province, that it is only now we have gotten to the point of creating this legislative professional association.

The positive thing about it is we are recognizing that dealing with the forest and being involved in forestry indeed is a profession. I think that is what is making me feel very good about this legislation. We can sometimes take our resources for granted in this Province, a Province which is so rich with natural resources. We can take them for granted. As we know from the fishery, Mr. Speaker, we cannot take them for granted. Even our renewable resources can run out and we can be in the situation as we are right now with our fishery of trying to rebuild a resource that if we had been more careful with we would not have come to the terrible state that we have come with the cod in the water that surrounds us.

So I am very pleased to see this piece of legislation. While the piece of legislation has to do with the setting up of the association, there is a lot in the legislation that talks about how an association is run, just as we have legislation covering other professional associations in the Province. The legislation talks about how the association will be run and who can be a member. It talks about how members, what their responsibilities are, how they are to held accountable, what happens if a member acts non-professionally according to the profession of that member, and what is the discipline that is carried out if that happens, et cetera. All of that is in legislation covering all of our professions in the Province, all the ones that so far have been set up under legislation. We have legislation like that for social workers, we have it in the medical profession, and we have it for those in the various financial professions in our Province. Now we are finally recognizing, through this legislation, that those involved in forestry are also professionals.

I think that it is extremely important when it comes to acting on the needs with regard to having a sustainable forest in our Province; sustainable not just so that we continue to have forests and trees there to look at but also sustainable for industry. There are different aspects to the sustainability and we need people who know what they are doing to be working in the forest industries and that is what one of things that this legislation is about. It is about ecological responsibility, it is about environmental responsibility. Both of which are tied to the future sustainability of our forests.

I think it is important to point out some of the things that are in the act and I am sure that we do have people watching the House this afternoon who are concerned about our forests and I am sure that they would be really interested in knowing one thing in particular that the act talks about. I know I was very pleased to see it in the act and it had to do with the definition of professional practice of forestry. According to the act the ‘"professional practice of forestry' means the application of scientific principles to the management of forest ecosystems". This is extremely important. The recognition that while tradition can tell us how to take care of our forests, there are also scientific principles that whether we know it or not are actually behind many of our traditional practices. There are certainly people who have traditionally been involved with our forests, very often know from the histories – especially our Aboriginal people – from the history of their culture that their people understand how to work with the land and how to work with forests. Without their knowing it at the time, there are also scientific principles that actually are there behind the traditional knowledge that has been gained by people. It is really important that we recognize that. In this day and age when we are dealing with such technology, we need to bring both the traditional knowledge and scientific knowledge together. I think that this legislation is all about doing that, bringing our scientific and traditional knowledge together.

Some of the scientific principles that the act speaks to, one is the planning, directing and monitoring sustainable forest management. With the type of industry that we have going on, even though some of it has been downgraded because of the loss of the mill in Grand Falls-Windsor, we still do have forests being used for making paper, and even though that has slowed down, that is still going on in our Province.

We do have to look at all the different ways in which we use our wood, from making wood pellets - that is one way of forming heat – to other ways in which we use the wood for heat, even the use of trees for Christmas trees, the use of the trees for the paper industry. All of these different ways in which we use our forest has to be done carefully, it has to be planned and there has to be oversight of how it happens so that we sustain our forests. This is extremely important.

We also need to have people who can design, specify or approve methods for, or direct the undertaking of conservation and reclamation of forests and forest land. That means that as forest land is being used, we have to make sure that there is protection of that land and seeding and re-seeding that goes on so that the forests can renew themselves from their own seeds. We have to have ongoing evaluation of forests and forest land. It takes professionals to do that and those professionals would be members of the Association of Professional Foresters.

We have to have classification and inventory of forests and forest land. We need to know what it is that we have out there. Not just how much of it, we need to know that too, but we also need to know what it is that we have out in our forests, how what is in our forests can be used, and how it can be maintained and be kept into the future.

We also have to know how to treat our forests. Sometimes our forests get sick. Well, how do we take care of them? How do we take care of what is there in our forests? How do we make sure that we have healthy forests, healthy trees? How do we maintain that health? That involves everything from the speed with which we cut trees down through to how these trees are nourished from the land, et cetera. There are so many ways in which we have to take care of our forests if we are going to use them for industrial purposes, which we do, and even if we are going to use them just for heat. We know how over in Europe, centuries ago, trees were just completely used for heat and totally not replenished. Lands where there used to be trees, there is no longer a tree standing anywhere. We cannot allow that to happen here, and we will not allow that to happen here. Setting up this professional organization under legislation is one way in which we will not let it happen here.

We have to protect our forests and our forest land, and that is one of the goals of this act as well. It is one of the scientific principles to be sure that we protect our forest and forest land. We also have to plan, locate, and approve forest transportation systems, including forest roads, because there have to be roads. If the forests are going to be used, there have to be roads. We have to make sure that the roads are created in such a way that the roads themselves are not causing damage to the forests. Even the roads have to be part of the responsibility of the Professional Foresters, not just under the control of people who do construction of roads. We have to have environmental concerns for all aspects of what is going on in our forests.

It is also important that we have people who are professionals in order to teach forestry subjects at the university and in our technical college. It is important that we continue developing and creating people who are forest professionals. We also need research pertaining to the management of forests and forest lands. Research from one area outside of this Province is not adequate for us, because every part of the forest has its own ecology, and we have a very particular ecology here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We all know that depth of soil is not something that we are famous for in most of the Province. In some places, we have beautiful soil, like out in the Codroy Valley, for example, but not every place in the Province is like that. So, we do need research on our own forests, and we need that research to be going on all the time, because that is going to be part of sustaining our forests. We need people who are skilled and can use the correct scientific principles when looking at the impact of planned activities in our forests and on our forest land.

There are so many ways in which we need professionalism in the forestry industry. This act, by giving this long definition of professional practice of forestry, is extremely important because the definition really shows how the act is committed to maintaining our forests in a sustainable way, to maintaining a healthy forest, and to maintaining forests that will be of economic benefit to us here in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is extremely important for us to be developing our renewable resources and to be developing systems that make sure our renewable resources will go on being of benefit to us.

Right now, as we know, we have been putting a lot of confidence into the non-renewable resource of oil. We still have people looking at the issue of gas as well. That is fine and dandy, and it is not wrong to use the non-renewable resources, but we have a real responsibility to maintain our renewable resources, maintain them in a good way both from an ecological perspective because that is extremely important, from the perspective of recreation, that we can enjoy being in our forests, we can enjoy being out there on our land and also from an economic perspective.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that even though this piece of legislation is dealing mainly with the actual setting up of the forestry professions and having directions for how they conduct themselves and how they manage themselves as an association, the act is also quite concerned with the scientific principles behind the maintaining of forest ecosystems.

From that perspective, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with this piece of legislation. I am very happy that finally this piece of legislation is coming to the House, and I will be happy to vote for it.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to rise and have a few words to say on Bill 27, An Act Respecting Forestry Professions. Forestry is one area in my life - being from Central Newfoundland - that is very important. Of course, I grew up all of my life dealing with the forestry and forestry issues. Of course, my political career now has been dealing with forestry issues ever since I have been elected almost thirteen years ago.

Most of my district has been very heavily involved in the forestry industry, particularly on the Green Bay South side. We still have companies today that are into forestry, making a good living for a lot of people. Even today, I did a private member's statement on one of the companies, Art Fowlow and Sons in South Brook who is one of the biggest forestry operators in the Green Bay area. He was recognized today, and deservingly recognized, for being the overall forestry contractor for the year 2010.

Mr. Speaker, there are many other contractors in my district who certainly depend on the forestry. Today we are presenting this bill, Bill 27, which shows that this government is committed to the professionalism of forestry in this Province and the management of our forest resources. We are very glad today, as well as the Leader of the NDP who is very glad we tabled this legislation and who will be supporting it, as well as most every member in this House.

Our forestry is a vital part of our economy in this Province, especially in rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. It is the economic backbone of a lot of small communities in rural Newfoundland. The spinoffs from that, Mr. Speaker, do not just stay in rural Newfoundland. The taxes are collected and spinoffs are done. It ends up in all parts of the Island, in the government coffers to be spent in every part of this Island of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, under the explanation of the notes for this act states, "This Bill would establish the Association of Registered Professional Foresters of Newfoundland and Labrador; provide the requirements for registration". Which is the basis of all this legislation, is that we will have a registration finally under legislation to recognize it. It will provide protection of the titles in this Province for the people who fall under the registered professional forester, registered forester, and professional foresters in training. It will also, as some of the members alluded to, provide for a disciplinary process in cases where people question the ethics of our foresters.

Mr. Speaker, first when I was elected in 1999, I was appointed the Forestry critic in the Opposition at the time. I spent four-and-a-half years dealing with forestry issues, travelling all over the Island and parts of Labrador dealing with foresters, dealing with companies, dealing with all the forestry aspects. I served on the committee in Central Newfoundland for the forest enhancement and protection of forests with the Sustainable Forest Management team. I spent six or seven years on that team. Of course, on that team also were a lot of professional foresters; people who went and got trained and acquired degrees in science and forestry. In that respect, a lot of these people, seventy in total, were in an association of their own for the last number of years. It first became a professional association back in 1996.

This legislation will formally establish an organization as a Registered Professional Foresters Association of Newfoundland and Labrador and legally mandate the roles and responsibilities of that association. As some of my colleagues have mentioned, the seventy members, of course, were also meeting on an annual basis with an AGM and the minutes of their AGM since 2006. It is only right for this government to make this now a legal entity and to establish the legislation to provide the protection for the professionals.

Even though, Mr. Speaker, the first registered Professional Foresters Association was formed in Quebec during the 1920s. It was then followed by British Columbia in 1947. Since that time, five other provinces have recognized the importance of having their own forestry associations. Of course, the most recent one was in Saskatchewan in 2006, where they became a professional association. Now, Newfoundland and Labrador will be following, of course, being a member of the Newfoundland and Labrador Professional Foresters.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation ensures the competency, independence, professional conduct, and integrity of the RPFNL members, which ensures a standard of education, qualifications, and professional development. They are prescribed to ensure the members are qualified and remain competent within their area of practice. There will be a code of ethics and disciplinary process to ensure that the members are held accountable for their actions.

Mr. Speaker, with the forestry in this Province being such a professional industry, and such a big industry – in the Province today we have 5.2 million hectares of forested land valuable to the Province, and in Labrador over 18 million hectares of forested land that is pretty valuable to this Province. We have to realize that the people who are dealing with those issues in forestry should be and are proud to be a part of this association that is going to be protected under this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the spinoffs of the forestry industry for us here in my district particularly, with the trucking, the harvesting, and all the spinoffs with some sawmills in my district and even throughout the Province with the wood pellet industry now starting to unfold. We still have a pulp and paper industry. The Green Bay South side of my district is heavily involved in the pulp and paper through Corner Brook Pulp and Paper. We have hundreds of loggers on that side of my district who depend on the forestry and depend on the foresters who are very professional, very concerned, and very interested in the forest industry to make sure that our forest industry is sustainable and survives for many years. With the amount of money that has been put into this industry, we can see that it creates a lot of value for our Province.

Over the years we have tried many things in forestry. We tried integrated sawmills, we tried with probably a dozen or so integrated sawmills a few years ago. We are down to three or four now, but it incorporated a lot of small sawmills and it made it easier to access markets, it made it better for these companies to survive in the competition around the world. It seemed to be very good in the time, and it is going to come back again. We have seen times when forestry goes down and it comes up, so it is always up and down.

Even back 100 years ago, my grandfather was involved in the forestry. They used to cut birch billets, they called it back then. It was junks of birch to send overseas to Europe. They were at that for many, many months during the winter getting them out to the salt water so ships could pick them up. Since then, we have had 100 years of pulp and paper in Grand Falls-Windsor that a lot of people made a really good living off. The forestry was a very important part of that. We appreciate the forestry, we understand the forestry, and we certainly want to protect the forestry. We want to protect the people who are professionals working in the forestry.

Today, we have this legislation, Bill 27. I certainly have no problem to stand here and show support for Bill 27. I encourage government to keep on doing the right things that we need done for our forest industry. Hopefully, for many, many more years our children and grandchildren will enjoy the benefits from our forest industry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If the Minister of Natural Resources speaks now, he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

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

I want to thank the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, the Member for Mount Pearl North, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South for their input and debate into this important piece of legislation for allowing now the forestry professionals to establish a self-regulating occupation.

Mr. Speaker, it was mentioned during some of the debate that right now there are seventy professional foresters who are in this association. We obviously hope that number will increase now that we will formalize, in legislation, a way for these people to self-regulate and to create a code of practice and a code of ethics that they will follow. There are eight provinces right now in the country that have provincial associations. Seven of them have brought in legislation; we will be the eighth province, obviously. We will, as was said, become one of the ones where there is strength in numbers; we will have more people now who will have the legislation to follow.

I want to just reiterate the economic benefit. I think it is important because I do not know if people in the Province understand the economic benefit of the Province's forests. Two hundred and fifty million dollars per year is generated in our economy from our forests – a quarter of a billion dollars, Mr. Speaker. In terms of direct and indirect employment, some 5,500 people are directly and indirectly employed in this. It is a renewable resource, it is a sustainable resource. It is one that we have had, as has been indicated, companies in the Province that have exploited the forest for well over 100 years. So, it is certainly something that we have benefited greatly over the years. With these forest professionals that we will now enshrine into an act, into a piece of legislation, we are hoping that their code of practice, their ethics, their professional management, and their professional training will allow the forest to continue to be receiving benefits for the people of the Province for many years to come.

One question that I will try to answer was asked by the member opposite for The Straits & White Bay North and it had to do with section 30. Section 30 of the act is when there is an investigation, the professional conduct committee is conducting an investigation under section 26, if they find that there is some potential of guilt of a criminal offence, if they believe in their investigation that the person being investigated may be guilty of a criminal offence, the committee then is to immediately discontinue its investigation or its hearing, and report its findings to the head of the association. The point raised, and it is a valid point, is: Well, then what does the head of the association do? Are they able to just sort of stifle it there, or would they have to bring it on somewhere else, for instance to a judge of a court?

That was discussed with the people who want to form the association. It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the self-regulating body would like to define or entrench in its own bylaws what the course of action would be for the head of the association. So we are leaving them the flexibility to determine do they want the head of the association to bring it to the authorities? Do they want do a formal report and bring it to the attention of the authorities if somebody is found guilty or potentially guilty of some misconduct or some criminal activity?

The association asked, basically, that they would have the authority and the flexibility to design their own protocol in their own bylaws that they would create under the authority of this act. We felt, given the professionalism of these people and given that this is a self-regulating occupation, that it would be a fair request for them to make and a fair request for us as a Province to allow.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to speak in second reading on this particular bill. I am now going to conclude my remarks. Again, I want to thank all members who spoke. I appreciate the support that has been indicated for this bill. As I indicated before, I think it is only going to benefit the people of the Province and benefit our forests. I look forward to its passing into legislation.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Forestry Professions. (Bill 27)

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

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

Now? Tomorrow? Presently?

MS BURKE: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Forestry Professions", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 27)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, we will call Order 10, second reading of Bill 28.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 28, An Act To Amend The Health Research Ethics Authority Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 28, An Act To Amend The Health Research Ethics Authority Act, now be read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Health Research Ethics Authority Act". (Bill 28)

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 December 12, 2006, the Health Research Ethics Authority Act received Royal Assent in the House of Assembly. The main purpose of this act is to establish an open and accountable provincial framework for the protection of human subjects participating in health research.

Once proclaimed, Mr. Speaker, this act will empower the Health Research Ethics Authority with provincial responsibilities for ethics review. Mr. Speaker, as a result, the authority will be charged with the general supervision of all health research involving human subjects conducted in the Province, assuring that all research is carried out with respect for individuals and communities and carried out for their good, both in the present and the future.

The population, Mr. Speaker, of our Province is considered to have a unique gene pool that is good for, or conducive for health research, particularly in the fields of genetics. This characteristic has resulted in a high interest from both public and private sector health researchers in carrying out health research in the Province on the people of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, what I mean by that is we have seen situations in medical science in the last number of years whereby if there is a predisposition to a certain disease then DNA testing, or genetic testing, can be utilized to identify where other members of the family, or families, or community are at risk. It is my understanding that this is how genetics and DNA are being utilized to help take a preventative or pre-emptive approach towards major disease.

Mr. Speaker, we have interest, and I think we have seen in the past advertisements in the paper looking for subjects in terms of certain diseases and certain types of research. What the Ethics Authority would do would be to monitor these projects and to look at how they are being conducted. I am informed, Mr. Speaker, and I understand that in the past there have been incidents where researchers have collected data using human subjects without following the appropriate and widely accepted ethical review procedures. The act, once enforced, will include that all human health research projects are ethically reviewed.

My first exposure, Mr. Speaker, to the use of the ethics, or ethics committee, or ethicists in the Department of Health was during H1N1. I became the Minister of Health on October 9, 2009, and by the end of that month we were in the midst of the H1N1 crisis. During that crisis, decisions had to be made as to, we had a limited amount of the vaccine, so who do we give the vaccine to? Health Canada had outlined who they thought to be the categories of people. If you remember, Mr. Speaker, we had people with a predisposition to certain diseases, people who suffer from certain diseases; we had small children, and we had pregnant mothers. So what happened, as we moved along, there were conflicts – when I say conflict, I do not mean that that there were arguments, but there were discussions among my officials, medical officials, public health officials, as to the criteria that should be applied. If anyone remembers, Mr. Speaker, during that first week of H1N1, and the line-up down around MacDonald Drive; so, does a child get the vaccine first? Is it an elderly person, who is most at risk with the disease? Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that there were a lot of issues in terms of how to use limited vaccine.

I remember on a Saturday morning, about three weeks in, having a discussion with an ethicist as to whether the approach that we were taking, as a department, was consistent with the ethical framework that medical science would utilize. It was a very enlightening and interesting discussion as to how we should we proceed and how we should go about it. It was not a question of asking the ethicist, well do you agree with this? It is not a question of looking for a stamp of approval. It was a discussion as to whether or not the proposed policy, or the policy that we were utilizing was consistent with that ethical framework. I have to say that the discussion that day certainly put a perspective on what we were doing that I had not necessarily considered.

So, Mr. Speaker, when you have research projects, you have real-time decisions that have to be made. In the last couple of weeks I am aware of another situation where an ethicist had been involved in a daily situation. Health ethics is a very important aspect of what we do, and the Health Research Ethics Authority Act which received royal assent will be proclaimed in the not too distant future.

Mr. Speaker, as we engage as a society in these types of research projects, then it is important that they be reviewed to ensure consistency with medical practice, and also, respect for human dignity and to ensure that the subjects of these projects are being treated as they should be, so therefore that there is an ethical review.

What Bill 28, the bill I have here today – I am talking about the act that we brought into force that received royal assent on December 12, 2006, and which will be proclaimed in the not too distant future. What we have here today in Bill 28 is a housekeeping bill that is intended to clarify that the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement is superior to the Health Research Ethics Authority Act in the event of a conflict. A similar clause, Mr. Speaker, exists in other recent legislation, such as the Children And Youth Care And Protection Act.

The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, Mr. Speaker, provides the Government of Nunatsiavut with the authority to make laws in the Labrador Inuit Lands and the Inuit communities in relation to matters respecting the health of Inuit. This includes laws respecting health research and ethics review. The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the laws of general application, takes priority over the Human Research Ethics Authority Act. Bill 28 merely reflects that priority in a clear and consistent manner.

The Department of Health and Social Development with the Government of Nunatsiavut has indicated its support for the act and this amendment. An announcement respecting the proclamation of the Human Research Ethics Authority Act will be forthcoming in the near future.

Now, my colleagues, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, the Member for Torngat Mountains, or my colleague, the Minister of Labrador Affairs, will certainly be able to speak in much more detail, in terms of how the land claims agreement came about, and what exactly the role of the Nunatsiavut Government is. Mr. Speaker, essentially, and I have had numerous meetings with the Nunatsiavut Government representatives as a result of my various portfolios, whether it be – when I was in Justice, we dealt with some justice issues such as policing on the North Coast of Labrador. We dealt with issues such as how the courts and whether or not we should have a particular Inuit court. I also dealt with them in Finance, and I have dealt with them as the Minister of Health. Most recently, Mr. Speaker, the provincial government and the Nunatsiavut Government partnered in a suicide prevention project on the North Coast of Labrador.

I am not sure of all of the towns or where the Nunatsiavut Government, Mr. Speaker, the beneficiaries, but I think the communities of, certainly, Hopedale, Rigolet, Makkovik, Postville, and Nain –

AN HON. MEMBER: That is it.

MR. KENNEDY: That is it? Okay.

Then we have the Lake Melville area, Mr. Speaker, where, I understand, there are a lot of the beneficiaries of the land claims agreement.

So what we have is a situation where the Nunatsiavut Government, I think the seat of government is in Hopedale. They have offices in Nain, and also offices in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. They govern within their territory and over their people. They have a government, we had a very historic meeting – I guess it was in the fall of this year – where there was joint Cabinet meeting between our Cabinet and members of the Nunatsiavut Government Cabinet. It was a really good meeting, it was nice to see everyone sitting around the table raising concerns that are of mutual interest. Mr. Speaker, I will say that it is very helpful when the Nunatsiavut Government brings their perspective to the provincial government. Of course, we have our Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, who lives in Hopedale, and who is more than familiar with the culture and the laws of the Nunatsiavut people.

When we brought in the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, as I have indicated, there were a number of areas in which they would have authority, and there would be a divestiture that over a period of time they would take over certain areas. Now, you have to look at, Mr. Speaker, in terms of criminal law, where there would be conflicts, and the land claims agreement is written in such a way that there is jurisdiction that the Nunatsiavut Government has. One of them is when they take over health. At this stage, Mr. Speaker, they have their own Department of Health and Social Development, and we met with the present minister and the deputy minister in Happy Valley-Goose Bay when we announced the suicide prevention project, and also the portable X-ray machine for Nain.

So, Mr. Speaker, this act is essentially a consequential amendment which gives priority to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, as outlined in that agreement. Since 2006, a human research ethics authority transition team, with volunteer representation from Memorial University, Eastern Health, private industry, and the Department of Health and Community Services, has been laying the groundwork to ensure a seamless transition to a timely and efficient review process which promotes health research in the Province. The transition team has developed processes, policies, and standard operating procedures to ensure efficient ethics review. Members of the transition team have been actively promoting the new legislation throughout the Province, nationally and internationally. Presentations have been made with health care organizations, health care providers, Aboriginal groups, and Aboriginal governments throughout the Province. The transition team has also developed preliminary detailed budget estimates, communication plans and materials, and with assistance from Memorial University and Eastern Health, secured and developed physical and operational materials and facilities to allow for the HREA to commence operations immediately following proclamation of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, our department, needless to say, is thankful for the efforts of the transition team, in particular, the work of Dr. Penny Moody-Corbett who is the current chairperson of the team. It is through their volunteer efforts that we will soon be in a position to bring this important piece of public protection legislation in force.

In conclusion, this bill will amend the Health Research Ethics Authority Act to clarify that in the event of a conflict between the act the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement will prevail, as outlined in that agreement.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to this Bill, An Act To Amend The Health Research Ethics Authority Act, and I thank the minister for speaking to this bill and clarifying some questions that I would have.

The bill itself is pretty straightforward. The bill is adding to the act the usual clause about Labrador Inuit rights, which has to be in all of our legislation, recognizing the rights that the Labrador Inuit have in our Province, especially both with regard to the Land Claims Agreement, which is the main right, and now of course, the fact that they have their own government, Nunatsiavut. It is extremely important that we make sure that all of our legislation recognizes those rights. For some reason, this was left out of this act and now it is being put in.

I have a particular interest in this bill, Mr. Speaker, and in the act that the bill refers to because, in actual fact, it was the first piece of legislation that was put in my hands back in November of 2006 after I had been elected for the first time to this hon. House. It was very interesting for me because it was an area that I was interested in, the area of ethics with regard to health research. So, I remember well the work that I put into reading the piece of legislation, the work that I put into sitting down with the minister and discussing with the minister the legislation, and actually effecting, for the first time, a couple of amendments to the legislation, with the then Minister of Health and Community Services. Amendments which I think were important, and which the minister obviously thought were important as well, since they were made. So, it was very concerning for me when I first saw this bill, the one that we are discussing today, Bill 28, and to actually be reminded by the bill itself that the act that we had put in place, that got approval in 2006, had not yet been proclaimed.

I was really interested in the explanation that the minister just gave. I can certainly understand that there is a lot of work that needs to be put in place to make some acts operative, especially something that is a new act. His explanation of the transition team has allayed some of my concerns, but I certainly now would be hoping, as the minister has indicated, that we will very shortly be proclaiming this act once we pass this bill.

This act has to do with protecting individuals again, and I think it is very, very important. There is always the potential for unethical research, and academia has recognized this for a long time now. I do not think there is, but certainly in our country, there is not an academic institution that does not have a body that looks at the ethical aspects of research that researchers who are part of that institution want to carry on. I think it was extremely important that this government, in 2006, finally came forward with legislation that was to cover any research that is going on, not just research that may be part of our academic institutions. I think this is extremely important because it means that the privacy rights and integrity of our citizens is now going to be respected because there are national standards with regard to protecting citizens, and it is important to have those national standards, but it also is important that we have our own legislation to cover the protection of people in the Province.

We all know of various human investigations where very often the individuals who are being studied, or the families who are being studied, or the groups of families who are being studied did not have their rights protected by people doing research. I think it is really interesting that there was a report done by the Province, a report that was done in the year 2000 called the Skanes report. It was that report that has led to the legislation that was passed in 2006.

So, this has been going on for a long time, Mr. Speaker. It is eleven years now since the Skanes report, and we still do not have the proclaimed act. I am trusting in what the minister has said with regard to the proclamation of this act.

The first time that this issue seemed to have been raised in the House of Assembly was in 2000, with the Skanes report. That was brought about, Mr. Speaker, especially because of increasing commercialization of health research, particularly genetic research in the Province. That was what instigated the need for the ethical review of all research projects involving human subjects, and that is what this bill was directed to deal with. That report that was done in 2000, the Skanes report, was done primarily because of a number of research projects and data that was collected using human subjects without following the appropriate ethical procedures. As a result of the Skanes report, this particular legislation of the act that we are amending was put in place. It is really important that we identify ownership of DNA, personal health information, the privacy of the individual involved as participants, and also the establishment of legislation that is going to protect.

Mr. Speaker, this review that was done in 2000, we were the first province to have such an ethical review and that is really good that it happened and has resulted in this legislation. Once again, I say all that, Mr. Speaker, to show the importance of this legislation being proclaimed because, certainly, research has not ended since 2006. Research is going on, genetic research is ongoing, and there is a lot of genetic research that is being done that is done privately, not under our academic institution. So, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that it has taken so long for the act to be proclaimed, but I am very glad that finally it seems we have come to the end of the road. It is eleven full years of identifying the need of the legislation and finally getting the legislation proclaimed.

One amendment in particular, Mr. Speaker, that I was able to have made to the bill back in November, 2006, was an amendment which I think was extremely important and one which I am assuming is going to be acted on rather strongly once the bill is proclaimed. What that amendment did, Mr. Speaker, it had to do with the need for making the public aware of their rights and responsibilities.

One of the things the original bill did not do, it was called Bill 23, back in November 2006, one of the things it did not do was point out that the authority - that means the health research authority - would have responsibility to make the public aware of their rights and responsibilities under the act. This was not explicit in the bill.

One of the things that was pointed out to me, especially by people who are experts in the whole area of medical ethics, is that people need to know what their rights are. Because when somebody professional comes up to a family, or to a community, or to a group of families and says we are interested in researching your history, for example, your genetic history because we have identified maybe that there is a common link with regard to a certain disease, people may be so happy to get information about the disease in their family that they very readily might say yes. They may not have known anybody else who has been involved in this kind of a situation. They may not have known of their rights, Mr. Speaker, that they can say no if they want to. They can protect their information if they want to.

Having legislation and regulations that are part of the legislation that are going to, one, identify what the rights are that people have, and also identify responsibilities as well, because there are responsibilities, and to identify the responsibilities of the authority itself; legislation that will do all of that is extremely important. It is going to be very, very important for the Health Research Ethics Authority to put a really aggressive plan in place with actions that will make sure that everybody in the Province, no matter where they are in the Province, will have information about their rights when it comes to medical research; that will have information about who they can go to if some researchers come up to them and say: oh, we are interested in doing this. Well, where do people go? Who do they talk to? Who do they get advice from? Can they do it by the phone? Can they make an appointment to see somebody one on one?

This kind of research is very delicate, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is going to be something brand new. It is going to be something that people have not experienced before, a piece of legislation that stops them from being, to put it in common parlance, guinea pigs. Because for too long that has happened with people, that people are guinea pigs and they get used by researchers. This is not saying that all researchers do that, it is not true, but there are some who will do that. So, this legislation is to protect people from being used as guinea pigs.

They are going to need to know what to do. They are going to need to know where to go. They are going to need to know, what are the mechanisms that can protect them? That is going to be the responsibility of the Health Research Ethics Authority, Mr. Speaker. It is not going to be the responsibility of a particular arm of government. It is going to be the responsibility of the authority which will be in control of monitoring everything that is going on with regard to the ethics around medical research.

They are going to have to have the resources to make sure that every form of communication that can be used will be used, whether it is the use of the electronic media. If it is the use of radio, if it is the use of local community papers, posters, signs up in medical clinics and doctors offices, and in all of the hospitals and medical facilities around the Province, we are going to have to be really aggressive in getting the information out.

I was really pleased in 2006, when I pointed out to the minister of the day that that responsibility was not in the bill, he, I guess with others in the Department of Health and Community Services, agreed. This is something that does need to be in the bill. I feel very good about that, and with this bill being proclaimed, then I feel confident that in a very short period of time after it is proclaimed we are going to see this bill being promoted - or this act, because it is an act now, this act being promoted all over the Province and people knowing the rights that they have as individuals and as groups to protect their privacy and to make sure that they are in no way being exploited by people who are interested in doing the research.

Having said all of that, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that it looks like this act is finally going to be proclaimed, once we pass this bill here today, and I think it is none too soon. As I said, it has been eleven years since this topic was first discussed here in this House of Assembly in the year 2000. It is now extremely important that we finally have an act that is going to protect the people in this Province with regard to their privacy rights, with regard to their health history, both as individuals and as groups.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the Minister of Health speaks now he will close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I have indicated in my remarks earlier, this particular amendment is a fairly simple amendment in terms of making it consistent with the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. That act itself will be proclaimed in the not too distant future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Health Research Ethics Authority Act. (Bill 28)

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

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

Now?

Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Health Research Ethics Authority Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House, presently by leave. (Bill 28)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 17, 27 and 28.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Kelly): Order, please!

We are now debating Bill 17, An Act Respecting The Mandatory Reporting Of Gunshot And Stab Wounds.

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Mandatory Reporting of Gunshot And Stab Wounds". (Bill 17)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 8 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 8 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 8 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act Respecting The Mandatory Reporting Of Gunshot And Stab Wounds.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Bill 27.

CHAIR: Order, please!

We are now debating Bill 27, An Act Respecting Forestry Professions.

A bill, "An Act Respecting Forestry Professions". (Bill 27)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 45 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 45 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 45 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act Respecting Forestry Professions.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Bill 28.

CHAIR: Order, please!

We are now debating Bill 28, An Act To Amend The Health Research Ethics Authority Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Health Research Ethics Authority Act". (Bill 28)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Health Research Ethics Authority Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: I move, Mr. Chair, that the Committee rise and report Bills 17, 27 and 28.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bills 17, 27 and 28, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley, and Assistant Deputy Speaker.

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered the matters to them referred and has directed me to report Bills 17, 27 and 28 without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee has considered the matters to them referred and has directed him to report Bills 17, 27 and 28 without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bills be read a third time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

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

MS BURKE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, Motion 1.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1 reads, "To Move that the House Resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider a Resolution Relating to the Advancing or Guaranteeing of Certain Loans made under the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957", Bill 26, and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

We are now debating Bill 26, the related resolution, An Act To Amend The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957.

Resolution

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

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On April 11 of this year, I gave notice that this amendment would be coming forward to the House. The bill and the resolution proposes to amend the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957 in order to ratify new loan guarantees or changes in loan guarantees, such as increases in the amount or term extensions to existing guarantees.

Under the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957 of course, the government and the Minister of Finance, in particular, is authorized to sign or give guarantees. Obviously, that would be done with the ratification or with the authorization of the Cabinet, the Lieutenant Governor in Council or Cabinet. Of course, you cannot borrow money, or you cannot spend money, or raise money, or give a guarantee without it ultimately being approved or ratified by the elected representatives of the people of this Province, which happens in this Chamber.

Over the years, government has provided guarantees in support of a number of companies and in support of Crown corporations, except under established programs such as the Aquaculture Working Capital Loan Guarantee initiative or the Fisheries Loan Guarantee Program. The use of loan guarantees to provide financial assistance to the private sector has been reduced substantially. Government does not do it any more. The non-program guarantees still outstanding essentially represent what have been special circumstances over the years. They have been in place for many years. Where circumstances permit, the government has been attempting to negotiate with companies and their lending institutions to gradually reduce and eliminate this form of financial support.

The amendments to the act, which is an amendment to the schedule to the act, is that the government comes forward, or the Minister of Finance comes forward every year, it is part of the normal financial administration of the Province, and brings forward any new guarantees that have happened since the last time we were here doing this. That was in June of 2010. Now, there has been one additional guarantee and that is now being brought forward as an amendment to the schedule to the act and we are seeking ratification of this guarantee by this hon. House.

The act, of course, requires that all such guarantees that are approved and issued be ratified by this House through an amendment to the schedule to the act. The current bill, as I indicated, there is only one guarantee and the amendment is to increase that existing guarantee. It is a guarantee that the government has given with respect to indebtedness of the Newfoundland and Labrador Immigration Investor Fund, a Crown corporation that since 2005 has been the vehicle by which this Province takes part in the Government of Canada's Business Immigration Program.

It is a Government of Canada Business Immigration Program. Immigrants lend money to the government under that program. The federal government allocates the money to the different provinces and Newfoundland and Labrador's share is received by the Newfoundland and Labrador Immigrant Investor Fund Limited, a corporation. That corporation promises to pay back the money to the federal government within five years. When the money is given to the federal government, the federal government deducts 7 per cent to pay commissions. When that corporation in Newfoundland and Labrador pays the money back, it has to return the money plus the commission within five years.

The government of the Province, of course, gives a guarantee to the Government of Canada. So the Province guarantees that if the corporation, the Newfoundland and Labrador Immigrant Investor Fund Limited, does not pay that the Crown, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, will in fact pay. That is what a guarantee is. A guarantee will not involve the spending of any money, at least initially. The guarantee is a promise that if somebody else defaults in the payment, the Province of Newfoundland will make the payment. So, it is a contingent liability and it is shown on the financial books of the corporation as such.

As I said, the money has to be paid back over five years. We get money from time to time. It goes to the fund as part of this program. The amendment secures the repayment of about $55 million, $54.6 million to be exact, relating to advances that the corporation had received from the federal government since March 31, 2010. So, Mr. Chair, with the guarantee program, as I indicated the money is lent by the federal government to the corporation and they would then use that money to enhance economic growth and development in the Province.

The problem with the funds, and I am sure the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development will speak to this, is since the money has to be paid back within five years, we obviously have to be very careful in terms of the investment of the funds. I think in terms of those funds, we have earned little over $2 million in retained earnings in the corporation since that time.

Of course, initially the money went into some short-term money market funds or interest funds, and authority was given to put some of the money because interest rates got so low. Permission was given to invest the monies in some government strip bonds so we could do a little better. So we made money in the early years, we lost some money last year, but overall I think we ahead to the tune of about $2.9 million, somewhere in that range.

I would imagine the members of the Opposition will want to have some discussion about the fund and about the guarantees. The Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, the corporation that is responsible for the investment will report to that minister. There is a board of directors consisting of government officials who look at applications for the use of that money and determine how the money is to be invested and what to be done with the money.

Basically that is it, Mr. Chair, this is normal everyday financial administration under this legislation. Any guarantees are here for ratification of the members of the House, and I urge passage of the resolution and the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

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

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

The Committee of Ways and Means have asked that I report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee has considered the matters to them referred and has directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

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

This House is now adjourned.

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