May 31, 2012                      HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                    Vol. XLVII No. 41


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today we want to welcome to our galleries two groups. There are three members of the winning provincial team that represented Newfoundland and Labrador at the Students in Free Enterprise National competition in Calgary, Alberta, May 7-9. The three members of the team with us today are: Luke Power, Allison Penton, and Rebecca Pelley.

Welcome to our Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Welcome, and congratulations.

We are also very pleased to welcome twenty-seven Grade 8 students from New World Island Academy in the District of The Isles of Notre Dame. The students are accompanied by teachers Dean Kinden and Kris White; their chaperone, Christine Dearing; and bus driver, Ed Luff.

Welcome to our Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we will have members' statements from: the Member for the District of Burgeo – La Poile; the Member for the District of Terra Nova; the Member for the District of Port au Port; the Member for the District of Bonavista North; the Member for the District of St. John's West; and the Member for the District of Kilbride.

The Member for the District of Burgeo – La Poile.

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

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Marine Atlantic's Port aux Basques Terminal's Occupational Health and Safety Committee for receiving the Committee of the Year Award at the fifty-sixth Annual Newfoundland and Labrador Occupational Health and Safety Conference.

A panel of Newfoundland and Labrador Occupational Health and Safety Association experts reviewed information relating to the activities and initiatives of the committee regarding such items as workplace inspections, toolbox talks, incident investigations, and committee meetings to arrive at their decision.

With more than 3,100 registered Occupational Health and Safety Committees in Newfoundland and Labrador, it is a tremendous accomplishment to be selected as Committee of the Year. I thank this committee for stepping up and being a leader in your commitment to health and safety in the workplace.

Committee members include: Curtis Butt, Betty Battiste, Gwen Davis, Bob Green, Robert Horwood, Tony Janes, Vanessa LeRiche, Dave Mauger, Paul Strickland, Corey Upwards, Trevor Thomas, Jim Bragg, Barry Ferguson, Larry Hill, Carolann Ingram, Jim Lane, Perry Lomond, Ross Skinner, and Basil Taylor.

I ask all hon. members of this House, Mr. Speaker, to join me in congratulating this committee for their award and the recognition they deserve.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Terra Nova.

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

I rise today to recognize an individual from my district, Mr. Gerald Thomas of Musgravetown. Mr. Thomas has spent his entire adult life volunteering with a number of organizations within the Musgravetown and surrounding area. A snapshot of Mr. Thomas' community service shows his overwhelming level of commitment.

His past and present roles include, but are not exclusive to, former Boy Scout leader, as well as Chairperson of the Board of Stewards, Official Board Member and Cemetery Committee at the Heritage United Church in Musgravetown. He actively assists with the local Royal Canadian Legion, is a Chairperson of the Heritage Collegiate School Council since its formation, is a member of the Triple Bay Eagles Search and Rescue Team, St. John Ambulance Instructor, and previous town councillor – and of course the role he is best known for, currently as Fire Chief of the Musgravetown local fire department. He has also held that position since it was formed in 1975, Mr. Speaker.

I ask all hon. members of this House to join me in recognizing the efforts of Mr. Gerald Thomas, who has given his time so unselfishly, and has demonstrated how the actions of one person can benefit so many.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for the District of Port au Port.

MR. CORNECT: Je me lève aujourd'hui pour féliciter les élèves de la circonscription de Port-au-Port qui on été reconnus à la 15e Western Newfoundland and Labrador Regional Heritage Fair, à Corner Brook le 5 mai, pour leurs projets exceptionnels qui montrent la fierté que nous éprouvons a l'égard de notre histoire et notre culture.

Cette foire régionale donne l'occasion aux élèves passionnés de leur culture et de leur histoire de faire valoir leurs capacités scolaires et créatives.

All the students that participated across the Western Region are to be commended for their exceptional projects. I extend special congratulations to Brady Gaudon, for receiving the Use of Artifacts Award; Tanner Hann was awarded the Canada History Award; Christian Butt, for the Western Newfoundland School District Award; Jesse Byrne received the Effective Use of Theme Award; Anna Dollimont, the Parks Canada Award; and Sara Dyment for her project, Newfoundland Fairies.

Je demande à tous les députés de cette Chambre de se joindre à moi pour féliciter ces bons élèves. Je tiens aussi à remercier les enseignants, le personnel des écoles, les parents et le comité de planification bénévole d'avoir fait en sorte que la foire de cette année soit un grand success.

Merci, le Président.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CROSS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the kind actions of students of Phoenix Academy in Carmanville on Valentine's Day, 2012.

Students from Kindergarten to Grade 6 showed the true spirit of kindness as they participated in a friendly inter-class competition to raise money for a very worthy cause. When students contributed from their recess money they were given a paper ice cream scoop to add to their classroom cone. Students began asking friends and relatives to contribute and before long the ice cream cones spread along walls and ceilings and out into the corridors.

The Grade 3 class enjoyed an ice cream reward to celebrate their accomplishment of raising the most money. In total, the primary and elementary classes raised over $1,200, which will be forwarded to the Janeway Children's Health Centre.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident all members will be happy to join me in sending congratulations to these very unselfish students of Phoenix Academy. This is truly a way your fundraising spirit can take a licking. I scream, you scream, let's all scream for Phoenix ice cream.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. CRUMMELL: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the St. Matthew's School Grade 7 drama club and their drama teacher John Battcock on their recent success at the Eastern School District Regional Drama Festival.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time St. Matthew's drama club participated in the drama festival and it was a very successful run. The club performed the play Ghosts of Brigus South and was recognized with three individual awards and one ensemble award.

Emily Dwyer, Nicholas Riou both received honours for excellence in lead acting, and Megan O'Leary won the Gauthier Dempsey award for outstanding stage direction. St. Matthew's also received the ensemble award for original screenplay.

Mr. Speaker, this is quite impressive and given that this was the maiden run for this club, I am certain they have a bright performing future ahead of them.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the St. Matthew's Grade 7 drama club and their teacher John Battcock on their success at the Eastern School District Drama Festival and wish them continued success in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Nathan Whalen who is an incredibly active and well-rounded young man from the District of Kilbride and a recent recipient of a 2012 URock Volunteer Award.

Nathan has been particularly involved with Allied Youth in various leadership roles, including provincial president, provincial board member, and fiftieth anniversary committee member. At eighteen-years-old, he is already a longstanding volunteer coach with the Newfoundland and Labrador Blind Lawn Bowling Team. Nathan has been a strong voice for students and the community in his current role as vice-chairperson of the Bishops College School Council. In this capacity, he is active in Bishops College-Booth Memorial West End High School Committee.

In 2011, Nathan earned several awards in recognition of his dedication to the community, including the TD Scholarship for Community Leadership and the Canadian Association of School Principals' Student Leader of the Year award. Throughout his first year of university, Nathan was involved with MUN Oxfam, is a post advisor with the local Allied Youth post and is currently the CEO of Newfoundland and Labrador Speech and Debate Union.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating this outstanding young man.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before we move to statements by ministers, I have just been advised that we are also very pleased today to welcome to our galleries members of the Newfoundland and Labrador Foster Families Association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Diane Molloy is executive director, and is accompanied by Ruby Ellsworth, who is the board chair. We are also very pleased to welcome throughout the Province members of the Canadian Foster Families Association, including Sheila Durnford, the president.

Welcome to our Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend best wishes to the Newfoundland and Labrador Foster Families Association as they host the 2012 Canadian Foster Family Association Conference in St. John's this week.

This national conference brings together members of foster care organizations, foster parents, social workers, key note speakers and community partners from across the country to partake in a variety of informative workshops on foster care. The theme of this year's conference, Joining Hands across Canada: Walking with Children and Youth, reflects the spirit of the event as it provides an opportunity for attendees to network and discuss how to best fulfil the important role they play in the lives of our most vulnerable children and youth.

Our government provides $10,000 annually to the Newfoundland and Labrador Foster Families Association's provincial symposium. In honour of this wonderful national hosting opportunity, we have provided $55,000 to assist with conference planning and development. I am proud to say that our Province is well-represented at the conference, with staff from the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services and foster parents from all regions attending.

In light of this national conference, I must take a moment to recognize the efforts of those involved with foster parenting here in our Province. We are very fortunate to have 641 experienced and compassionate foster families who are dedicated to helping children and youth through complex situations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Their contribution is so incredibly important, which is why under Budget 2012: People and Prosperity, our government announced a new long-term continuum of care strategy that will offer more support to foster families.

With a total expenditure of $4.1 million in year one and an increase to $14.3 million in year two, this strategy will strengthen foster care by increasing funding for kinship arrangements and foster homes, and enhancing supports and training for foster parents. Improvements like the new four-level system will recognize the skills and training of our foster parents, and children and youth will be matched to a foster home that best meets their needs. During the conference tomorrow I will announce further details on this new system and the strategy.

The new continuum of care strategy, along with other significant undertakings by the department, including the implementation of new legislation, a new organizational model, and the creation of the new Training Unit and Quality Assurance Division, brings the provincial government one step closer to making our child protection system the best in the country.

I would like to congratulate the Newfoundland and Labrador Foster Families Association on the hard work and effort put into the planning of the 2012 Canadian Foster Family Association Conference. I am certain it will be an incredible success for everyone involved.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. I want to, too, commend the Newfoundland and Labrador Foster Families Association for the great work they do day in and day out, and to extend our best wishes to the Canadian Foster Family Association on their conference here in Newfoundland and Labrador of 2012.

Foster families do a fantastic job day in and day out providing care to our foster children. It is great to see that the conference is well attended by representatives, even in our own Province, using this opportunity to discuss Joining Hands Across Canada: Walking with Children and Youth. With the 641 foster families, we are thankful for the contribution they make, as I said, day in and day out. They provide invaluable support and services to our children in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, this is very special for me; I had a unique experience in 1986 to be a foster parent, and as a result of that, I now am the proud father of a twenty-six year old daughter, as a result of being foster parents at the time. It is a very special moment in your life, I can assure you.

You make a considerable contribution to many children and I really want to thank you for that. I wish all the attendees a wonderful and a successful weekend indeed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. Congratulations to the Newfoundland and Labrador Foster Families Association for hosting this year's national conference.

The association does an enormous amount of work every year supporting foster parents and foster children and has done it on a shoestring budget. Foster families play a crucial role in the strategy of care for our children and families in need. Because of their great work, the Newfoundland and Labrador Foster Families Association is finally seeing reforms in the foster family system that will provide the families with more funding and more flexibility to take care of children's needs.

Thank you for the very important work that you do on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and have a great conference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform hon. members of how a team of talented students from Memorial University are capturing attention around the world. Earlier this month in Calgary, Students in Free Enterprise (SIFE) Memorial, after competing with fifty teams from universities and colleges across Canada, won the SIFE National Championships. The Newfoundland and Labrador team was commended for entrepreneurial programs that genuinely benefit the community.

Among the outreach initiatives the SIFE Memorial team presented were projects helping military personnel, persons with disabilities, and people who earn money in city neighbourhoods by collecting recyclables. Through volunteer hours spent on these and other projects, SIFE estimates an economic impact of over $2 million, creating forty-seven jobs and affecting the lives of more than 4,700 people.

Mr. Speaker, this is the sixth time in seven years that SIFE Memorial has taken top honours in the prestigious event. In September, the team will represent Canada at the 2012 SIFE World Cup in Washington, D.C., where US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, will greet delegates.

It was only four years ago that the SIFE team was named the best in the world by winning the SIFE World Cup in Singapore. Last year, the SIFE team demonstrated how they are empowering Canadian veterans by helping medically discharged and retired military personnel start their own businesses – efforts that are being adopted this year by His Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales, and his charitable network.

It is also worth noting that Memorial University's business school was the first in Atlantic Canada to earn international accreditation with the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, the highest distinction a business school anywhere in the world can receive.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in congratulating the SIFE Memorial team and wish them every success in Washington.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement. Certainly, I would like to welcome our team members here today. Thank you for coming here and being with us.

Students in Free Enterprise are a great news story for Memorial and for this Province. Not only is our university renowned for such areas as marine engineering and medicine, but our young business leaders are certainly showcasing the Faculty of Business Administration. These students are national and international champions in entrepreneurship, and represent exceptionally well the Faculty of Business Administration at Memorial, as well as Newfoundland and Labrador. Their success has been published in full-page, colour ads in The Globe and Mail and it is a testament to our university and our Province.

Kudos to the team, as well as their leader, Assistant Professor Lynn Morrissey, who is a brilliant and charismatic mentor for these students. Again, it is remarkable how well our Province has done in this competition and how often we have been bringing home these honours. So again, it is a testament to the school, to the students, and to the staff.

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to the faculty, to all members of SIFE in this most recent win, and good luck in Washington.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thanks to the minister for an advance copy of her statement. I, too, would like to extend congratulations to SIFE Memorial on another significant accomplishment. These students continue to demonstrate that the goals of entrepreneurship and social justice are not mutually exclusive. They also remind us that Memorial's business programs rank amongst the best in the world in international competition. Indeed, accessible education has enabled these students to excel and to achieve excellence.

I wish SIFE Memorial all the best of luck in the upcoming world cup event in Washington. We look forward to their continued success.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since May 2006, pursuant to section 21 of the Regional Health Authorities Act, Eastern Health was required by law to balance their budget. This government, contrary to their own legislation, allowed Eastern Health to run deficits. The government topped up these deficits to the tune of $100 million.

So I ask the Premier: Why didn't your government provide the necessary oversights and controls to ensure that Eastern Health was balancing their budget?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Eastern Health has a budget of approximately a billion dollars and approximately 13,000 employees. What would happen throughout the year, Mr. Speaker, we would be funding the programs as they went along, providing money to them, and then, at the end of the year, they would find they did not have enough money. Mr. Speaker, what we felt the best way to do it, as a government, was to ensure that they start the next year on an even keel. We have tried to do that, and it took a number of years to see that was not going to work. So, in the last couple of years, what we have tried to do is come up with processes to ensure savings and increase in efficiencies; thus, Mr. Speaker, things like the HCM review.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, I understand the answer, but what I do not understand is why it took $84 million over the last four years to actually do that. It was either Eastern Health was underfunded, or there were obviously the inefficiencies that we need to look for.

The financial figures for the coffee shop at Eastern Health show a loss of $650,000 in the last four years. This was enough money to pay for an additional ten nurses. All of these losses happened under this government.

I ask the minister: Why did it take a team from Ontario to tell you that Eastern Health was losing money in a coffee shop?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I think the coffee shop is indicative of a larger issue, and that is: How do you ensure that the system is running as efficiently as possible? In discussions, Mr. Speaker, with Ms Kaminski as to how we could get to the problem or how could we look at ways of saving money, we had to look at the bigger picture. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the Tim Horton's coffee shop is an issue, but I also read today – I forget it could have been in either London or Windsor, Ontario, where the same thing has happened with the Tim Horton's that has lost money.

Mr. Speaker, what we are looking at is the bigger picture: the provision of services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we are not focusing on the Tim Horton's coffee shop. What we are looking at is: How can we best serve the people of the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not realize we would be benchmarking against a coffee shop in Windsor, Ontario, but Eastern Health is trying to justify that the losses at the coffee shop were solely due to wage rates. Yet, last year the loss of $260,000 was approximately 15 per cent of the expenditures, while the wage rate only increased 4 per cent.

I ask the minister: Why is Eastern Health trying to deflect from serious management issues, as, surely, these losses over the last four years could have been picked up by someone in the internal audit review of Eastern Health?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

There have been internal reviews as the member opposite states. What we had to look at, Mr. Speaker, is a bigger picture. What we have is a budget that takes up almost 40 percent of the provincial Budget. It has risen from $1.6 billion in 2003 to approximately $3 billion in 2012-2013.

The situation in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, is the same as throughout the country. The growth in health care is simply unsustainable. For example, Mr. Speaker, health care last year, just what I would call current service levels, there was a growth of $183 million or 7 per cent without putting a new dollar into the system.

What we have to look at, Mr. Speaker, is where are the efficiencies, where do they lie, and how can we improve the system without laying people off? That is what we are doing, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Eastern Health has a budget of $1.2 billion. Yesterday, the minister said that going through, line by line, Eastern Health's financial records is not something that she does. Just this week we had another minister, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, say how important it was to go through line by line just to find very smaller savings. The line by lines are indeed very important.

I ask the Premier: Why is there a double standard from minister to the other? Do we do line by line analyses or not?

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think what part of the issue you have to look at is how ministers do their job. Eastern Health looks after the operational day-by-day dealings, Mr. Speaker, in their system. What we look at is the bigger picture, the setting of policy; that is how you would look at it and the financial picture. We make decisions as to where money should be invested.

Mr. Speaker, let us look at some of the ways we have tried to, as a government, assist the regional health authorities, Eastern Health especially, in saving money. The HCM review can result potentially in $43 million in savings. The generic drugs can save anywhere from $10 million to $30 million and provide cheaper drugs to the people of our Province. The group purchasing arrangements, Mr. Speaker, can save $8 million to $10 million.

You start to add all of these up, Mr. Speaker, and what you will see is that Eastern Health will reach a balanced budget, and that is what we are trying to do; we are trying to assist them. Let us always remember the people of this Province come first.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The comment was made that we go through line by line by our own department, but you know what, this government is responsible for the approval of this budget. The responsibility lies within government to review all those issues line by line, in my opinion.

Nalcor released its annual report yesterday, which states that they made less money from the energy marketing line of their business last year because of lower market electricity prices in the US. Their average sale price was $45 a megawatt. Muskrat Falls will cost us $239 a megawatt.

I ask the Premier: Are you still confident that there are markets in the US for this power? If so, at what price?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There were a number of questions added in there, but I think it is very important to note that net income from Nalcor increased last year from $70 million to $127 million since 2006.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: All internally generated cash flow was reinvested in the business. Mr. Speaker, very significantly, we had put aside $348 million a couple of years ago for equity investments in Nalcor. They did not need it. They generated enough money internally, Mr. Speaker, to pay for it.

Energy markets, Mr. Speaker, are dependent on many factors. For example, last year we sold power to New Brunswick at $90 a megawatt hour, but that is when Point Lepreau was down. On the spot markets in the United States, Mr. Speaker, your rate per megawatt hour can go anywhere from $25 per megawatt to $100 per megawatt hour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Well, I asked the minister, my question was about Muskrat Falls power. Nalcor did that last year without Muskrat Falls.

I ask the minister one more time: What is the price that we anticipate in the US market?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, first I will go back to the previous question. It is somewhat semantical the way they are describing the cost of power. The cost of power that counts to the people of this Province is what is on their electricity bills. What Muskrat Falls will do, Mr. Speaker, is it will stabilize and then reduce power rates.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: To say that Muskrat Falls power is costing $230 a megawatt hour, the hon. member knows that he can play with numbers all day.

Mr. Speaker, we have met with experts in the United States. As I had indicated, Shell gas has had a significant impact on the electricity rates in the United States. However, Emera is willing to pay us $90 a megawatt hour for that power, and that is a good deal in today's market. Mr. Speaker, natural gas, the price of that at some point will rise and the price of electricity will rise with that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In answers to questions yesterday, the minister gave a very detailed and informative response to my question on industrial power from Muskrat Falls to Labrador. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I might put all of my questions on the Order Paper. He stated that new mining projects will be estimated at $10 billion to $15 billion in capital investment for mining developments in Labrador over the next ten years. He also stated that these new developments will require an adequate supply of electrical power at competitive rates in order to proceed.

I ask the minister today: Has an industrial power rate now been established for Labrador for the mining industry?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the member opposite is aware, we are in discussions with numerous companies as to whether or not they want the power. At this point, Mr. Speaker, there is only one company that has signed on the dotted line saying: We need power. We do not have the industrial rates developed at this point, Mr. Speaker, but we know that as a Province we have to be competitive with Quebec and Manitoba who produce the lowest rates in the country.

We have to look at the cost of building transmission lines. Muskrat Falls includes the building of a transmission line to Churchill Falls. We still have to get to Lab West, which is approximately another 250 kilometres and a $350 million line. We have Tata up beyond Lab West, and also Labrador Iron Mines. We are working with all of these companies, Mr. Speaker. Make no mistake, we want them to proceed. It is good for the economy of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Whether it is one company prepared to sign or ten companies, there needs to be a rate established and that is what we are looking for.

The minister also said that if Muskrat Falls does not proceed, there will not be sufficient power available for all of the mining projects to proceed in Labrador. I am happy that the government is finally redefining where the need for power exists, Mr. Speaker, because it certainly slipped their minds when they did their agreement with Emera.

I ask the minister: If 40 per cent of the power is earmarked for the Island, will the other 60 per cent remain in Labrador if that is where the demand exists?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker, looks at Island demand. We know that at peak Holyrood is not going to be able to meet Island demand, with Vale Inco and other growth.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the 20 per cent, and I really want to focus on that 20 per cent, we get a link to the mainland which we will then own. We can develop small hydro on the Island. We can develop wind on the Island and in Labrador. It is by doing all of this, by the link, the Labrador-Island link, the Maritime Link, and the development of Muskrat Falls that we will be able to provide power.

Essentially, Mr. Speaker, Muskrat Falls by itself will not be enough to provide potentially all the power that is needed. As we have seen, and if they read The Globe and Mail over the weekend, Mr. Speaker, the Chinese economy is running into difficulties. It is the Chinese economies with the demand for iron ore that is the basis upon which these projects are meant to proceed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Although Muskrat Falls is touted as 824 megawatts of power, Mr. Martin has indicated that the most we can expect from that project is 70 per cent of that. With a block of that power destined for the Island portion of the Province to replace Holyrood and 20 per cent of it for Emera, it is going to leave very little for use in Labrador for industrial customers or anyone else.

I ask the minister: If the power is needed in Labrador in order for future mining to proceed, as you have stated, why would we even continue with the agreement with Emera? Why do we not just cancel that component of deal?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The owning of this link, Mr. Speaker, after thirty-five years is something that is beneficial to our children and grandchildren. We are looking to the future, as we always do, Mr. Speaker.

Let's also look at another point, and I would ask the members opposite to think about this, at least the Liberals. I do not expect the Third Party to get it. Mr. Speaker, if Holyrood is refurbished or uses natural gas, it satisfies the Island demand. Muskrat Falls will not be built, Mr. Speaker, simply for the mining companies because they cannot afford or will not afford. Muskrat Falls satisfies the need on the Island, Mr. Speaker, also satisfies the Labrador mining and gives us that link to the mainland where we can develop all our resources, Mr. Speaker, to benefit future generations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy to hear the minister say that because it leads into my next question, and that is: Has the Province or Nalcor crunched the numbers on this project looking at keeping all of the power in Newfoundland and Labrador for our own use versus the thirty-five-year power contract with Emera where we will give away 20 per cent of that power? Is there a comparison, and if there is can you share that with us?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let's just look at the Labrador mining projects for a second, if Muskrat Falls does not go ahead. Then what we are left with is that continuous reliance on Quebec, which for forty years now is something that has handicapped this Province in terms of our ability to secure our place in Canada and to secure our place, Mr. Speaker, with a viable and vibrant economy. That link to the mainland, Mr. Speaker, not only allows us to sell power at a good rate, it allows us to develop our other resources and it allows us to develop small hydro and wind. What it does, Mr. Speaker, it says to Quebec: 2041 is not that far away, if you want to rely on Upper Churchill power you should talk to us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While we were in this House yesterday debating a private member's resolution on search and rescue, which the government voted down, the Premier released a statement calling on the federal government to further review its protocols respecting response to ground search and rescue in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: How can you say a public inquiry is not necessary when in the same breath you are asking the federal government to change its protocol?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, you have to have a question that is not answered if you are going to inquiry what the answer might be. If we understand what took place in Labrador at the end of January, early February, and we understand where there was a gap in service, Mr. Speaker – and we believe we do – why do we need an inquiry to establish what we already know? What we know is that the federal government, because of its protocols at JRCC, did not respond to the request for help that first five hours of the first day of the search, Mr. Speaker, and we think they ought to have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs stated in this House yesterday that having a public inquiry is not going to bring Burton Winters back and it is not going to change anything at all.

I ask the minister: How can you make such an insensitive comment when you know full well that an inquiry leads to valuable recommendations and improvements, in this case, in search and rescue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is really sad how this tragedy has been used as a political football by members opposite almost from the first day. There is nobody in this Province insensitive to the loss of that young man and the impact that has had on his family, first of all, on his community, and indeed, on the whole Province, Mr. Speaker.

We have taken a considerable amount of care to understand what happened here. We believe that service, humanitarian service that is provided by the federal government can be improved by changing their protocols. An inquiry cannot mandate the federal government to do anything, because they do not have a mandated responsibility for ground search and rescue in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile, for a very quick question, please.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier blamed unions this week for problems associated with the skilled worker shortage in the Province and said she is trying to figure out why companies like Vale are going outside the Province for work despite full union lists.

So I ask the Premier: Your government was in power when Long Harbour was in its infancy. How can you comment on the situation as if you are merely an observer and not a key player in ensuring that this work happens here?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier, for a quick answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the Member for Burgeo – La Poile raises the whole issue of the hydromet facility in Long Harbour. People will remember in this Province that this party was in opposition when that deal was signed, and the Leader of the Opposition of the day, and later Premier, talked about being able to drive a Mack truck through that agreement.

Because of the delay in their implementation plans, Mr. Speaker, this government, because we had moved to this side of the House, was able to go in and substantially improve the benefits to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians – absolutely true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: In spring 2008, her predecessor said the long-term care –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: In spring 2008, her predecessor said the long-term care and community support strategy would be ready in the fall. In the fall he said the strategy would be ready next spring. In the spring he said an update would be ready in the near future. Last spring, another minister couldn't say when we would see the strategy, and yesterday the minister says: we are going to see it soon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I ask –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker has recognized the Leader of the Third Party. I ask her to conclude her question.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: When is she going to release the long-term care and community support strategy? And I don't want the answer, "soon".

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

MR. KENNEDY: Soon, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Two years ago the Eastern Health Patient Flow Study found that a shortage of home care and rehabilitation services has caused a backlog of patients in hospitals. The study called for a long-term care and home care strategy. Across the Province, 15 per cent to 20 per cent of hospital beds are occupied by medically discharged patients waiting for a placement in the community.

Again, I ask the minister: Will the long-term care and community support services strategy include an action plan to expand home care and long-term care?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the issues that surround the long-term care strategy is the issue of people being in hospital beds who should not be there. What we have had to look at as a government, Mr. Speaker, is how do we address that situation? We are building new long-term care facilities; we have a new facility in Corner Brook, Mr. Speaker, we have new facilities going up here in St. John's, we have a new facility in Lewisporte, being built in Carbonear. That will open up some beds.

We are also looking at opening up hospital beds and reducing wait times, Mr. Speaker, to get people out of the hospitals. The name of the strategy or the proposed name of the strategy was closer to home, Mr. Speaker. We realize that people want to be near their communities and near their families, and they do not want to go into the hospital until such time as is necessary.

Mr. Speaker, my recollection is it costs approximately $1,500 a day to keep someone in a hospital bed. We want people to get what they want and (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

We are told the present exercise of finding efficiencies in Eastern Health is being done because of the authority's deficit. The minister has indicated that she says this same exercise will be going on with the other authorities as well; however, the other authorities do not have the same large deficits as Eastern Health, or they have balanced budgets.

I ask the minister: Why is she forcing the benchmarking process on Western Health which has a projected balanced budget this year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Approximately 40 per cent of our budget is going to health care. This is a phenomenon across this country which has to be addressed. The HCM review, or the benchmarking review, is a way to create efficiency.

Let's talk about the review that the Leader of the Third Party wanted, Mr. Speaker, this external review. Let's talk about the Hay review, and that is the kind of review she is still calling for, Mr. Speaker, because what the NDP want to do if they want a review like that is to shut down rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Today she is out marching with the people, Mr. Speaker, whose jobs she wants to take.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

Mr. Speaker, this government continues to deal with problems as they arise in the health care system on a case-by-case basis.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: The point of an external review of our whole health care system would be to get a comprehensive idea of how to proceed with this most vital government service and how the four authorities can work together.

I ask the Premier: Will she commission an external review, independent review so government can switch from damage control to quality control?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, we have looked at various ways of increasing efficiency in the health care system. We have brought in wait time strategies, Mr. Speaker, we are looking at the emergency room.

Let me tell you what an external review will do, Mr. Speaker, it will say in a Province that has 500,000 people over a large geography, you do not need that clinic in the West Coast. The Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, you do not need that. Let's close St. Lawrence, Minister, you do not need that. That is what is going to happen when you bring in an external review because what it will simply look at, Mr. Speaker, is saving money, and saving money will shut down rural Newfoundland and Labrador. If you do not know it, you should know it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, rents province-wide are skyrocketing. I am getting calls from seniors on low and moderate incomes who cannot afford these uncontrolled rent increases. Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation said that the majority of calls they get for rent supplements are from seniors who face two to three year wait lists. Seniors are having to make decisions about rent, heat or food. The current rent supplement program is not working for them.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: What plan does she have to deal with this?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works; Minister Responsible for Housing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again in addressing the housing needs of the most vulnerable people in this Province, we have initiated any number of programs that are helping these people to find adequate housing. Rent supplements are one, Mr. Speaker. This year we have increased it. We are up to $1,700. Add to that our 5,500 units, we are doing a pretty good job, I think.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, the seniors who are calling our offices, who are living in fear about these rent increases do not think that the government is doing a fine job. BC has a solution; they have a Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters program.

What is this Province going to do for our elderly renters?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, besides creating housing and housing opportunities for our seniors, we are also very much involved with other programs. Our REEP, for example, is a program where we can go in and keep people in their homes. With the proper insulation and with the savings they have, some upwards to $300, $400, or $500 a year, these programs are helping us. Our Provincial Home Repair Program is keeping seniors in their homes and making sure they have proper housing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Budget 2011 promised $100,000 to assist new entrants with legal land survey costs involved with buying Crown land for agricultural development. Clearly, they identified accessing Crown lands as a barrier for this development, yet the Legal Land Survey Program has been cancelled only a few months after it has been announced.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Why was this program axed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, one of the most beneficial programs we have to agriculture in this Province is Growing Forward. With the federal government, it has been approximately an investment of $27 million over the last number of years. There are hundreds of applicants, Mr. Speaker, who benefit from that.

Mr. Speaker, what we are looking at in our Province is ensuring food security and food supply. We are not where other provinces are when it comes to agriculture, Mr. Speaker. They are looking at innovation and risk management. What we are looking at is trying to ensure that we can provide the food that we need for our own people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think dealing with food security would be looking at getting new entrants into the market. This program was launched in September and cancelled on March 31, before the growing season. There were only two applicants of $8,000.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Why did his department not give this program more time and more promotion?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

One of the very significant factors – we currently have more farms here in this Province right now than we had in 2006. Mr. Speaker, we are seeing growth in the area and we are still not, though, where the rest of the country is in terms of their farming. Mr. Speaker, farm cash receipts in the last year were approximately $124.7 million, with the majority of that coming from dairy, chicken, and egg. We have our local farmers who supply the vast majority of milk, chicken, eggs, and turf grass, turnips, carrots – go out to Lester's, I say to the member opposite, and see what they are doing out there.

Mr. Speaker, we are encouraging our own people to grow food. As I have indicated, Growing Forward, and Growing Forward 2, which we will negotiate with the federal government at the upcoming FPT meeting, is a very important program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, early childhood educators have said that the planned wage supplement increase for only Level II ECEs who operate child care centres is misguided.

Will the minister now commit to a more equitable solution for all ECEs?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government is absolutely committed to the highest quality of child care, not only in this Province but in the country – and that is what this strategy aims to do. Not only are we going to aim for the highest quality in the country, but we are going to have more affordable rates for parents, and we are going to increase spaces by 70 per cent, Mr. Speaker. We will be doubling our investment in ten years, spending $457 million over ten years. That shows our commitment to children.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party for a very quick question.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will she agree with her own expert, Dr. Wade Locke, that $8 billion would be too much to pay for Muskrat Falls?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: No, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to section 26.(5)(a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling one Order-in-Council relating to the funding of pre-commitments for the 2013-2014 fiscal year, and it is in relation to the new Department of Health and Community Services to facilitate contracts for the construction of the Grand Falls-Windsor youth treatment centre, and the Paradise youth treatment centre.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Pursuant to section 8 and section 10 of the Public Tender Act, I hereby table the report of the Public Tender Act exceptions for April 2012, as presented by the Chief Operating Officer of the Government Purchasing Agency.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, June 4, 2012.

Further I give notice under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Monday, June 4, 2012.

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

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

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

I am going to finish up and be very quick, Mr. Speaker, on the question asked by the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair in relation to the demand for electricity in Labrador and how such demand could be met. I had outlined yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the discussions we had with various companies and where we stand. Then I talked about, Mr. Speaker, that the development of Muskrat Falls will also support significant regional economic development in Labrador because this is an important aspect of Muskrat Falls.

Power will be available for industrial expansion and development in the region at competitive rates, encouraging development which brings further business opportunities. Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker, will generate over 2,700 jobs during peak construction. The construction of the Muskrat Falls Project will also be a major benefit to Labrador with an average of 1,150 individuals employed annually in Labrador from the project's generation and transmission component. This activity, Mr. Speaker, will generate income of approximately $450 million to Labradorians and Labrador-based businesses.

The mining sector, Mr. Speaker, is important to the Province for many reasons. It provides jobs, it generates income and activity for individuals and businesses, and it provides tax revenue that is used to provide government services such as health, education and social services.

Labrador iron ore and Voisey's Bay projects represent 98 per cent of the current mineral production in the Province. Labrador, Mr. Speaker, also offers tremendous future opportunities for the mineral sector with benefits resulting for Labradorians and the rest of the Province. The Muskrat Falls Project provides us with an opportunity to realize these opportunities and secure a bright future for Labrador and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador as a whole.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, on May 16 the Member for St. Barbe tabled a question in the House of Assembly requesting an update on the lobster licence buyout program. Mr. Speaker, I am more than pleased to provide information here today in response to this request. The program the hon. member is referring to is the Lobster Enterprise Retirement Program. This program is part of a suite of measures under the Newfoundland Lobster Conservation and Sustainability Plan, which was announced as a federal-provincial industry initiative on November 18, 2011. The plan responds to the federal Atlantic Lobster Sustainability Measures initiative. It includes measures to enhance conservation and economic viability within the Province's lobster fishery.

The Lobster Enterprise Retirement Program, with a total budget of $17.05 million, is the major element of this plan, Mr. Speaker. The provincial contribution to the program is $5.1 million, representing 30 per cent of the total cost.

The Lobster Enterprise Retirement Program is based on a reverse auction process whereby the program seeks the lowest bids to retire fishing enterprises. The program objective is to maximize the number of licenses it retired with the funds that are currently available. This will allow those harvesters who choose to remain in the fishery a greater opportunity to increase their fishing incomes and the viability of their enterprises

The following are highlights of the program to date. The lobster fishing areas, referred to as LFA, eligible for the program include 11, 12, 13, 14A, and 14B. These areas extend from Fortune Bay along the South Coast and on the Western side of the Great Northern Peninsula. Two bidding rounds of the reverse auction have been completed. In these rounds, 658 bids were received and thirty-nine were accepted. Three bidders subsequently declined the offers made to them. A third round of bidding will take place during the July-August period immediately following the 2012 lobster season.

The Newfoundland lobster fishery is conducted by approximately 2,840 licensed lobster harvesters. This represents about 30 per cent of the lobster harvesting licenses in Atlantic Canada. By contrast, the Province's lobster fishery represents approximately 5 per cent of the value of the Atlantic lobster industry, Mr. Speaker, and about 4 per cent of the landed value of the Newfoundland and Labrador fishing industry in its entirety. This situation illustrates very clearly the extreme over-capacity in this fishery.

Despite the relatively low importance of the lobster fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador when compared to other Atlantic Provinces, and the Province's fishing industry, the lobster fishery is indeed very important for fish harvesters on the Province's South and West Coasts in lobster fishing areas 11 through 14. In these areas, harvesters have a strong dependence on this fishery, greater than 75 per cent of their income in many cases, a high participation rate – about 94 per cent are active – and very low fishing incomes. Moreover, with declines in other fisheries, particularly ground fish, there is an increasing dependence on the lobster fishery.

The analysis completed for the fishing industry memorandum of understanding referred to as MOU shows that fishing revenue is in the order of $25,000 per year on the Province's South and West Coasts. Owner incomes from fishing can be significantly lower when fishing expenses are taken into consideration. In some cases, expenses can represent more than 80 per cent of their actual revenue. These expenses, Mr. Speaker, include variable costs such as the crew wages, bait, fuel, and license fees, and overhead costs, which include expense items such as insurance for the vessels.

Lobster harvesters work in a competitive fishery without enterprise allocations and without individual quotas. As a result, the ability of fish harvesters in these areas to self rationalize, or in other words, to buy others out, is virtually non existent. In 2008-2009, the fishing industry was hit hard by the global economic downturn and unfavourable changes in exchange rates. This impact was magnified in the lobster fishery because of its strong dependence on the US market, at approximately 80 per cent, and the perception that lobster is a luxury or a discretionary item.

The lobster fishery is the valuable single species fishery, Mr. Speaker, in Atlantic Canada. It has been extremely valuable for the Maritime Provinces somewhere in the order of $1 billion. As a result, the federal government was pressed to identify measures to assist lobster harvesters, including those in Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec. The response by the federal government opened the door to requests for federal funding for capacity reduction it had previously rejected. This shift in federal policy provided our Province with an excellent opportunity to leverage federal funding for harvesting capacity reduction in both the lobster and ground fish fisheries on the Province's South and West Coasts.

The buyout concept was a component of the lobster fishery sustainability and conservation proposal, which was prepared by the FFAW with financial support from our own Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. The initial proposal was submitted in January of 2010. Following discussions with the federal and provincial government on a number of issues including funding levels, trap resale, and the vote by harvesters on the proposal, it was finally received on May 30, 2011. The FFAW proposal and eventual plan was designed to enhance lobster conservation, improve the management of the lobster fishery, and reduce fishing effort through trap and enterprise buyback. The ultimate goal is to enhance the economic and the environmental sustainability of the fishery and to increase the incomes of lobster harvesters.

The FFAW plan had two elements to achieve the sustainability goals and objectives, a conservation element and an economic sustainability element. Under the conservation element, the goals and objectives will be achieved through enhancements to lobster data collection including scientific data; catch and effort information; and environmental impact information such as loss, year, and ghost fishing.

More specifically, funding will be provided for a mandatory logbook program, a harvester science field book program, an at-sea sampling pilot program, and conservation activities to reduce ecosystem impacts. These activities would include workshops, expanded V-notching projects, and efforts to increase the designation of closed areas and lobster refugia. This program element will be directed at all lobster fishing areas within the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I noticed you are signalling time. I will conclude there and I will finish my answer tomorrow.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on April 2, the Member for Burgeo – La Poile put Question 14 on the Order Paper asking the Minister of Justice to lay on the table information regarding any structural or operational difficulties which have been identified with Her Majesty's Penitentiary, and any studies, reports, or recommendations regarding the improvement of the Penitentiary. I am glad he did that, Mr. Speaker, because it gives an opportunity to answer this question, which you cannot really do in the forty-five seconds that you have during Question Period. I am pleased today to stand and respond to that question regarding Her Majesty's Penitentiary.

The question asked for any studies or reports regarding the improvement of HMP. Everybody has heard, of course, of the report we commissioned in 2009, Decades of Darkness, which has helped us make substantial and important improvements at HMP and our other correctional facilities. I referenced this report, Mr. Speaker, the other day in this House when I was addressing Question 13.

The report is readily available, Mr. Speaker, on our Web site and it certainly has been our main guide as we improve conditions in all of our correctional facilities. No doubt, Mr. Speaker, the issue of a new penitentiary is one of importance and priority for the Department of Justice and for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Prudent fiscal management, Mr. Speaker, must sustain us as we continue to lay the foundation for our continued prosperity.

We recognize that Her Majesty's Penitentiary is an aging facility and it does not reflect modern correctional needs. We will continue to review how we can best meet those needs; however, we must also continue to make investments to improve the programming, living, and working conditions at HMP. Regardless, Mr. Speaker, of when we get a new facility we still have, for some time, to put some investments into HMP. I am pleased to stand here today and state that with the improvements we have made over the last several years, we have improved conditions for both inmates and staff, and many have told us that conditions have very much improved.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial government has invested $760,000 for upgrades to the ventilation system at HMP. The first phase of this project improved the living and working conditions for inmates and staff, and helped eliminate an issue of high temperatures and humidity, which has impacted those at HMP for some time. Phase II and III are ongoing. We will continue upgrades to the existing ventilation system in the east block, as well as new windows for the offices in the living units. With these improvements, there is a continuous supply of fresh air.

Mr. Speaker, we have upgraded the CCTV surveillance system, which consist of changing CCTV technology from analog to digital video and doubling the number of cameras in HMP. We replaced the roof over the originally existing centre block, removed all drywall in the living unit cells, removed the T-bar ceiling in the living units, and installed new security sealants in the living units. We have replaced sections of the perimeter wall. We have also made improvements to ensure there is natural light in segregation by installing windows. We have constructed a holding cell with electrical door and emergency panel backup for added security in the intermittent department.

Mr. Speaker, we have also installed new video-conferencing equipment at the Provincial Court and HMP, which allows individuals in custody to make first and routine appearances at Provincial Court without leaving the correctional facility. This is also including installing video conference rooms at HMP. By all accounts, Mr. Speaker, this initiative has been deemed a great success. We have constructed a secure interview room to provide enhanced security for high-risk interviews at HMP.

Other improvements, Mr. Speaker, include the purchase and installation of a new walk-in cooler, heating equipment, and a new dishwasher for the kitchen; along with renovations of windows in the food storage area, a new key washer cabinet, installation of uninterrupted power supply to HMP to deal with power and emergency issues, and a new fire and emergency panel for the guard room at HMP.

Mr. Speaker, these improvements have been made in conjunction with the Department of Transportation and Works. I will add that many of these improvements are in addition to the $7 million spent to improve HMP and other correctional facilities as a result of the Decades of Darkness. Mr. Speaker, these improvements include: the addition of two trailers for programming space, and one attached to the medical unit, as well as renovation to the school and administrative space within HMP; $1 million for renovation of the Newfoundland and Labrador Correctional Centre for Women; nearly $700,000 for improvements to the West Coast Correctional Centre; as well as improvements to the Labrador Correctional Centre.

Mr. Speaker, the biggest issue raised by the inmates in the Decades of Darkness report involved a lack of programming. I am particularly pleased that we have done significant work to improve this area. We have such programming enhancements as addictions counselling, drug awareness, violence prevention, employment training, structured leisure activities, mental health improvements, and women's programming. Some of these have occurred through strong partnerships, Mr. Speaker, with groups like the Canadian Mental Health Association, the John Howard Society, Turnings, and Stella Burry Community Services. We have also improved food menus to deliver healthier portions and options. This was another issue raised by inmates.

Mr. Speaker, although we recognize that Her Majesty's Penitentiary is an aging facility, as you can see, we have done much to improve conditions, and this has certainly helped raise morale for both inmates and staff. We will not stop there; very recently in this House I restated that we are currently assessing all of our infrastructure projects in this Province in corrections. We hope to have some proposals ready for government within the year, with respect to how we can better organize our correctional facilities and make some recommendations to government in this respect.

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that we need the help of our staff to help us improve conditions at HMP. All our correctional facilities have active occupational health and safety committees that meet every three to four months. The committee at HMP has three managers, one being the co-chair, and three employment representatives, one being the co-chair. This committee, Mr. Speaker, addresses building cleanliness, ergonomics, pest control, air quality, and all other hazards identified through regular inspections and assessments. They also play an active role in staff accommodations, ensuring staff can return to work as early as possible after an injury without jeopardizing their safety and the security of the facility.

Mr. Speaker, the committee also works closely with the Occupational Health and Safety Branch of Service Newfoundland and Labrador, and over the past two years, they have satisfied several OHS orders and continue to communicate with OHS inspectors to ensure the health and safety of both staff and inmates is always a priority within the HMP.

They continue to train staff by having them participate in OHS courses and committee training. With the committees working together, Mr. Speaker, HMP has made great strides in health and safety, and with this co-operation and training will continue to keep safety a priority for all our facilities.

I will end, Mr. Speaker, by stating that as Minister of Justice, I am exceptionally impressed with the dedication and commitment by the staff and the leadership that we have at all our correctional facilities. They have difficult jobs to do, Mr. Speaker, but they rise to the occasion every time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I present a petition today to pave Route 434 in Conche.

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 Route 434, Conche Road, is 17.6 kilometres of unpaved road; and

WHEREAS the current road conditions are deplorable; and

WHEREAS the provincial government in the 2011 Budget set aside money for five kilometres of paving that was not started; and

WHEREAS it is government's obligation to provide basic infrastructure to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; and

WHEREAS an improved paved road would enhance local business, especially tourism, which is vital to the health of the communities affected;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to allocate funds in the 2012 Provincial Budget to pave Route 434.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to see that the work that was allocated in Budget 2011, those kilometres are actually started. The equipment is there; they are going to be paving. It is disheartening to many people who live in the Town of Conche, because they would have liked to have seen work being done to address the unpaved gravel road, which gets in very poor condition and which earned them the seventh-worst road according to the CAA report this past winter in a polling.

If that five kilometres was allocated to the unpaved gravel road, we would only have about thirteen kilometres of unpaved roads. The people of Conche, in this community, could see a solution to dealing with and start growing infrastructure and the tourism community. They have a bed and breakfast there; they have the French Shore, which sees over 2,000 tourists, and they have activities going on throughout the community, but as a means to really look at advancing their economy they really do need to look at taking this provincial road out of the gravel inventory, this road there.

I would like to see this road paved, as do many members of the community, as well as the people who have signed the petition. I urge the House here to ask government to allocate funding for this road.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition to the House of Assembly. It says:

WHEREAS Labrador is a vast land mass with many isolated communities; and

WHEREAS unfortunately search and rescue assets were not adequately deployed during the search for Burton Winters; and

WHEREAS it is clear that permanent search and rescue assets are required in Labrador.

WHEREUPON your petitioners call upon all members of the House of Assembly to urge the government to do a full investigation into the Burton Winters tragedy and search and rescue in Labrador, and lobby the federal government to establish permanent search and rescue capabilities at 5 Wing Goose Bay.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I am bringing this petition forward like I have brought many others forward on this same issue over the last number of weeks and months. This petition, Mr. Speaker, comes from Happy Valley – Goose Bay and the Lake Melville area. It is signed by people on streets all over Goose Bay: Cabot Street, Adams Loop, Terrington Basin, Mitchell Street, Gear Street, Tenth Street, Palliser Street, and it just goes on.

Mr. Speaker, this is not just an issue for people in Northern Labrador or in the community of Makkovik, it is an issue for people all over Labrador and all over Newfoundland. It is an issue in which people are expecting the government to do a full investigation and inquiry into what went wrong here and to look at how the system can be improved.

Mr. Speaker, I heard some appalling statements in this House yesterday. I heard members stand in their place yesterday and say what would be served by an inquiry, other than pointing out that someone might have made a bad decision. Mr. Speaker, when the Ryan's Commander sunk and people's lives were lost, someone could have stood in this House and said: Why do an investigation to find out if somebody made the wrong decisions?

As a result of that, we have seen improvements in safety; we have seen improvements in vessel design. We have seen a number of things, Mr. Speaker, that have contributed to saving the lives of fishermen on the sea as a result of it.

When the Melina and Keith II sank and four people lost their lives, no one stood up in this House and said we should not do an inquiry because if we do, we might find out that someone made the wrong decision. Mr. Speaker, someone did make the wrong decision in that case and as a result four people's lives were lost.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: When the Cameron inquiry was done in this Province, when the lives of hundreds of people were lost in this Province, nobody, Mr. Speaker, stood up and said we cannot do this inquiry because somebody might have made the wrong decision. The reality was somebody did make the wrong decision. As a result of it the decisions have been corrected, new procedures were put in place, sixty recommendations were enforced, and health care has been improved in this Province. Mr. Speaker, that in itself carries no weight with me and the right thing to do is (inaudible) –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand again today on a petition concerning cellphone coverage in York Harbour, Lark Harbour and Frenchman's Cove.

WHEREAS the lack of cellular phone coverage in Lark Harbour, York Harbour, and Frenchman's Cove is a major safety concern for residents, especially in times of emergency; and

WHEREAS the lack of cellular coverage restricts and negatively impacts local businesses in the area as compared to most areas of the Province; and

WHEREAS the tourist destinations in our area are without cellular phone coverage, causing a safety concern and inconvenience for tourists who visit; furthermore, the lack of cellular phone coverage can be a deterrent for people in choosing our region as a tourist destination; and

WHEREAS the residents of Lark Harbour, York Harbour, and Frenchman's Cove should have the same cellular phone coverage available as other areas in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that, in some cases, have long had such service;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to support our request to obtain cellular phone coverage.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is probably about the fifteen or the twentieth time I have stood up on petitions concerning the Bay of Islands cellular phone coverage. I was encouraged by the minister's response saying that he is going to convene meetings to try to see if he can do a provincial strategy in Newfoundland and Labrador. I urge the minister to start those meetings as soon as possible, Mr. Speaker, so that we can try to get some program in place for all the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador as soon as possible. I also urge the minister to have public consultations throughout the Province to see what we can do for different regions of the Province to help out in this cellular phone coverage.

As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, on many occasions, I understand the minister when he says that it is a provincial issue, and I agree that it is not just in one area like the Bay of Islands, it is a provincial issue and that is why we need a provincial response to it. I call upon the government and the minister to provide a provincial strategy so that we all can participate, all the residents can participate, and I urge the minister to start this public consultation as soon as possible. Call in the other parties, the federal government, the CRTC, the providers in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, so that we can start the meetings. Once again, I offer my services, if there are any meetings that I can attend on the West Coast to help out because I know it is a provincial strategy.

I call upon the government and I call upon the minister to immediately start the public consultations and have all providers, have all the federal government representatives, and the provincial government representatives at the table.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy to enter this petition, which has been signed by thousands of people across Newfoundland and Labrador.

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 strikes and lockouts are rare, and on average 97 per cent of collective agreements are negotiated without work disruption; and

WHEREAS anti-temporary replacement workers laws have existed in Quebec since 1978, in British Columbia since 1993, and successive governments in those provinces have never repealed those laws; and

WHEREAS anti-temporary replacement workers legislation has reduced the length and divisiveness of labour disputes; and

WHEREAS the use of temporary replacement workers during a strike or lockout is damaging to the social fabric of a community, the local economy, and the well-being of its residents, as evident by the recent use of temporary replacement workers by both Ocean Choice International and Vale in Voisey's Bay;

We the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge government to enact legislation banning the use of temporary replacement workers during a strike or lockout.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

We have petitioners from a whole raft of different communities here today, Mr. Speaker, Bay d'Espoir, Cavendish, Chapel Arm, Bunyan's Cove, Trepassey, Outer Cove, Long Cove, Trinity Bay, Chapel Arm, Southern Harbour, Mount Pearl, Arnold's Cove, Bishop's Falls, Carbonear, Paradise, Holyrood, Port au Port West, Carbonear, Centreville, and Green's Harbour.

As we know, there are no statutory provisions right now banning the use of replacement workers in the Province, and organized labour is virtually unanimous in supporting the introduction on legislating prohibitions on the use of replacement workers. Research that I have been reviewing lately has suggested the duration of strikes increase during strikes where scab labour is hired. The length of labour disputes would be increased with the reliance that we have seen on replacement workers. One of the good things about this, that the use of replacement workers is relatively rare in Newfoundland and Labrador and in other jurisdictions as well, Mr. Speaker. So, we are thankful that most employers in Newfoundland and Labrador are fair-minded when it comes to achieving fair and collective bargaining with employees.

These petitioners, and we, in the New Democratic Party, would like to see us make that a lot more rare and abolish the use of replacement workers altogether. We can only achieve this through legislating the change that thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are asking members of the House of Assembly to urge the government to see passed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I present a petition for cellular phone coverage. As like the Member for Bay of Islands, it certainly is a global issue.

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 the need for cellular coverage is far-reaching in the District of The Straits – White Bay North; and

WHEREAS there is limited cellphone coverage in the Route 430 from St. Anthony area to St. Anthony, and there is little to no cellphone coverage in the communities surrounding Route 432, Route 433, Route 434, Route 435, Route 436, Route 437, and Route 438; and

WHEREAS residents of these communities require cellphone coverage to ensure their safety and communication abilities; and

WHEREAS the residents of The Straits – White Bay North district feel the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development should also develop incentives for further investments in cellular phone coverage for rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

We the undersigned petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to support the residents of The Straits – White Bay North district in their request to obtain adequate cellular phone coverage in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that as a Province with just 500,000 people, and with such prosperity, that we provide cellular phone coverage and make it available. Provide those incentives so that in all districts across the Province we have adequate coverage so that we can really get to the root of putting in enhanced 911 service; so that we can improve things like search and rescue by putting in the most basic infrastructure like having mobility service; so that people can make telephone calls in times of an emergency; so that people can use these microwave towers to reach out and communicate, as a form of education, to get information, if they are able to access and use a smart phone; as a means to put in and deal with doing business in the community, such as Raleigh, there is no cellular coverage. That is quite disheartening because if a tower was put into play you would see a greater far-reaching area. There are a number of people who are subscribing to cellphones but they are not able to get the full advantage of the coverage. That is very, very disappointing, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to - as the Member for Bay of Islands had presented earlier for one in his district - look at seeing an advanced telecommunication strategy and work with the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development and hammer out a plan so that we can really get improved access across the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I call Order 3, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Registration Of Deeds Act, 2009. (Bill 14)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development, that Bill 14, An Act To Amend The Registration Of Deeds Act, 2009 be now read the second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 14 entitled, An Act To Amend The Registration Of Deeds Act, 2009 be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Registration OF Deeds Act, 2009". (Bill 14)

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, Service Newfoundland and Labrador, quite often referred to as Service NL is responsible under our mandate for consumer protection in Newfoundland and Labrador. Part of that consumer protection includes the Registration of Deeds Act, 2009.

Mr. Speaker, the act was proclaimed in late 2010, and this act pertains to the registration of documents relating to real property, which refers to privately owned land for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It includes the filing of such documents as conveyances of deeds; conveyances of mortgage where a property is bought and sold, or sold from one person to another; notices of mortgage; notices of release of mortgage; and access of easements and other such related documents, Mr. Speaker.

However, after this act was proclaimed in late 2010 and it was implemented and put into practice, some inconsistencies were discovered concerning the use of the term instrument. In the act, instrument is defined as including "…every document by which title to land is changed or affected". Mr. Speaker, that is the actual definition, and again, the definition is: including every document by which title of land is changed or affected.

Mr. Speaker, there are many different types of instruments or documents that could change or affect title of land. In the act, only certain types of instruments must be filed for registration.

Mr. Speaker, before I go any further I must point out that this is a technical piece of legislation and it affects the registration of documents pertaining to land, as I just mentioned. It is technical in nature; it deals with documents and process that are unfamiliar to most people in Newfoundland and Labrador. However, it affects and involves the protection of consumers on what for most people is their most significant investment, being real property, private property, the land in which their personal home is located.

Mr. Speaker, in the act only certain types of instruments right now must be filed for registration. For other types of instruments, the instrument is not filed for registration. Instead, a notice of the existence of that instrument is filed. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is that instead of actually filing the actual document – and in the case of a mortgage document, a mortgage document can be lengthy and it can be complex; a mortgage document itself could fill a box in some cases. Under the act, only certain types of instruments must be filed. Other types, as I have said, do not necessarily have to be filed for registration; instead, a notice of the existence of these instruments is actually filed.

Currently throughout the act, the term instrument is being used to reference both instruments and the notice of instruments. That is how it is referred to in the legislation. It is referenced to both instruments and notice of instruments filed for registration. However, a notice filed of the existence of a document does not change or affect title to land, and it is not appropriate to use the term instrument when referring to a notice of instrument.

Mr. Speaker, to correct this in the act, an amendment is recommended to reference both an instrument and a notice of instrument where applicable in the act.

Mr. Speaker, there is also currently a section of the act where instrument is defined a second time. This is not necessary. It can be removed as it is already covered under the definition section of the act. That is located under section 7(1)(a) of the act where it is defined a second time. Mr. Speaker, it is unnecessary. It is in the act in two different places, so we are also amending the act to remove that second definition.

Mr. Speaker, currently under the act, there are several types of instruments that are not permitted to be filed for registration. In those cases, only a notice of the existence of the instrument can be filed for registration. I will repeat that, Mr. Speaker, to be clear on it. In the current act, there are several types of instruments that are not permitted to be filed for registration. Under those circumstances, only the notice of existence of the instrument is filed. Only notice can be filed. In the case of a notice of mortgage, the registrar may register the actual mortgage document instead of a notice if the registrar deems it necessary.

As I just referred to moments ago, there are times when there may be complex circumstances. There may be a complex history referring to that piece of land where it would be more appropriate to actually have the entire document filed instead of just the notice of the existence of the document. That can exist in a complicated case for clarity purposes and for the actual benefit of the mortgage documents to be in existence.

Mr. Speaker, again, currently under the act, for other instruments where only a notice of the existence of the instrument is permitted to be filed, the registrar does not have discretionary authority to permit the actual instrument to be filed if he or she deems it necessary, similar to the case of a notice of mortgage. Under the act, that is currently not permitted. Normally, a notice of the existence of the instrument would be filed. It is recommended, and what we are proposing, is that the registrar have that discretionary authority to register any type of instrument if he or she deems necessary.

Again, Mr. Speaker, there are cases where that occurs, where a notice of instrument – and that is simply a notice that a document exists. A lawyer acting on behalf of a property owner wants to file a notice saying: I have a document. For example, it could be a release of mortgage or a transfer of mortgage. There are cases where it would be more appropriate to have the actual release of mortgage or transfer of mortgage filed at the Registry of Deeds. Therefore, at the discretion of the registrar, what we propose is the registrar have that discretion when cases dictate, circumstances dictate, that the actual document be filed instead of the notice of the existence of that document.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment is a minor one. It will improve the operations of the Registry of Deeds and it will enhance the quality of information filed at the Registry of Deeds as well. Also the current act includes a certification section. That is where electronically submitted registration of an instrument requires the submitter to certify that he or she has seen the original instrument, with the original signatures, and the instrument being submitted is a true copy of the original instrument.

Mr. Speaker, there are cases where a document is electronically transmitted to the Registry of Deeds. It is submitted through electronic means and, in those cases, the person submitting it must certify, must include a statement, that the person submitting the documents have seen the original one, have seen the original documents, with the original signatures, and that the documents being submitted is a true copy of the original instrument; however, the act currently does not have a comparable clarification section where the submitter of the documents registers a notice of the existence of an instrument in a paper format. That occurs through mail or actually at a counter at the Registry of Deeds office where a person would walk in to file documents. Right now, we do not require the person to certify those notices that they know the existence of, they can certify the existence of the original signatures of the actual document itself. The bill addresses this deficiency and instruments that are submitted in paper format are checked by staff for compliance to ensure that it is an original.

Mr. Speaker, in summary, these changes will create a clear and more concise act. It will clarify the processes that are followed on a regular basis by mortgage companies, banks, and lawyers, acting on behalf of the best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are purchasing land, changing the status of land, transferring a mortgage, or releasing a mortgage. It will clarify what is required so that we have a Registry of Deeds that clearly articulates and gathers the documents in a format, in a concise searchable format, that is in the best interest of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As we all know, land ownership is highly prized in our society and the Registry of Deeds is a very important part of the process to acquiring and sell land. To ensure a valid title, a search of the Registry of Deeds is necessary for housing purchases or any property. While all corporations in our Province must be registered with the Registry of Companies, ownership priority is based on who registers a valid interest in a property, Mr. Speaker. This notice may be in the form of a lean against property, a deed of conveyance, a mortgage, or any other interest, Mr. Speaker, related to land which are registered upon delivery to the Registry of Deeds.

Mr. Speaker, the division has taken the largest database of information of all registries within the Commercial Registration Division. Records maintained relate to real estate here in the Province, dating back to the early 1800s, Mr. Speaker. This information can be searched through the manual index system from 1825 to 1979, and an electronic database from 1980 to present for current information, Mr. Speaker.

Essentially, the Registry of Deeds exists to alert the public of claims to land by people or the passing of titles. For the land owner, registration provides notification that you claim an interest in a particular real property located in this Province. As we have seen over time, there are many ramifications for failing to register passages of title. In law school, Mr. Speaker, one full course must be taken to truly understand the nuances and consequences of failing to register entitlement. We are all aware of this challenge in our Province whereby land claims are a challenge in itself to figure out, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as to the particulars of this bill, I understand the amendment is minor changes to Bill 14. It deals more with clarification. The confusion on the bill prior to this one, Mr. Speaker, is around the language and minor terminology. The confusion was around the terms that are used, as the minister alluded to, instrument and notice of instrument.

To clarify, Mr. Speaker, an instrument is not some physical tool in this context. It refers to any documents that pertain to land entitlement. The amendment to the act looks lengthy, but it is not really. There are a lot of places in the act that refer to instruments. Therefore, clarification most likely had to be made in many places.

Right now, Mr. Speaker, existing legislation uses instrument and notice of instrument interchangeably, creating legal confusion and something that is not necessary. The new policy now, Mr. Speaker, is clear on the distinctions between the two. The legislation needed to be altered to turn the existing policy into law, and it is for the benefit of everyone.

The other changes in the amendment have to do with cases where original documents, as the minister referred to, so-called instruments are not required to be registered. The notice of instruments will suffice. Currently, the law states that there are certain cases where only notices of instruments can be registered. In fact, the instruments themselves cannot be registered. The amendment permits the actual instruments to be filed if the registrar determines the information is in the public interest. For example, things like special circumstances or complications that the minister alluded to.

Mr. Speaker, the one suggestion that I would throw out to the minister for consideration to take a look at is the Torrens system of land registration, which I understand is an Australian system that simplifies real estate sales and purchases, and more importantly reduces costs to consumers. We appreciate that it is difficult to introduce in established areas, and especially in our Province where ownership of land is always a complicated issue.

Mr. Speaker, the Province might consider that all future subdivisions are placed in new lands titles division which would be beneficial to the consumers over the long term. I understand, Mr. Speaker, the Torrens system of land registration was adopted by Alberta and Saskatchewan as far back as 1905. As I said, it is difficult to introduce in established areas but if you require all new subdivisions to register under Lands, over a generation or two, land will gradually move to land titles, which is a benefit to consumers.

Mr. Speaker, Ontario also started this twenty-five years ago, maybe thirty years ago, and now they are starting to see the benefits. It may not look beneficial to the consumer once implied, but over time it does prove to be a benefit to the people who are affected. Right now, Mr. Speaker, it costs way too much to the consumer in fees, surveys, and title insurance to purchase a home, and the costs are going up ever year. Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is something that this government may want to consider in the future and certainly see if it is feasible to the people of our Province.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we support any amendments to the Registration of Deeds Act that will help clarify language and strengthen the act. It is important that we also keep pace with the changing landscape and best practices in land administration.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that searches in the Registry of Deeds have been ongoing since 2005, and that since 2010 half of the major law firms now do their searches online. So it is good to see this incorporated in the last number of years. Certainly, the services provided by registries are a critical part of business in this Province and so on. We do not only need to stay in the forefront of land and property administration, Mr. Speaker, but we need to provide a service to the public that cannot be surpassed.

I will be supporting this amendment, Mr. Speaker, and thank you very much.

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to Bill 14, An Act To Amend The Registration Of Deeds Act, 2009.

I agree with the comments made by the Member for Torngat Mountains when it comes to enhancing language and also the associated costs when it comes to looking at land, the surveys, the fees, and the registration. We do need to look at the Crown land basis. When we talk about this particular bill, the original act really had unclear language in reference to instruments and notice of instruments. So, this act is cleaning up the language and adds the notice of instruments into the act where it previously did not exist and creates a lot more clarity for the consumer protection.

Certainly, we see here that the registrar now is given the authority in special circumstances to file an instrument where a notice of instrument was previously only required. That information can be requested and made available to the public in a complex situation. That is certainly a positive step forward where it can be put on public record. It certainly appears to be so.

I just want to say one of the things is that our office was waiting nearly two months, asking to get a briefing on this bill. I know some of the enhancements only seem to be modest in nature, but we were given a briefing today to discuss this bill and speak to it in the House. That is not acceptable in my viewpoint, as we feel more time should be given to adequately do the associated research, contact people, and get the clarity from the department and the staff because there is power in knowledge.

The process here of voluntarily registering instruments with the registry can adversely affect people who are not aware of how this process actually works. Right now, it is up to the individual to make sure that a mortgage and other related instruments are filed with the registrar. In many cases, this is being done by the financial institution, or the law firm, but what is being done to inform people of their own personal obligation if they have gone through private sales and things like that, if they want to make this information public so that their information can be protected. What happens to people who cannot afford the lawyers or the financial institutions that are usually the ones who take care of these situations?

These are services that are provided by the Registry of Deeds levees – a fee to people who seek to make use of the registry's search engine from a personal computer. It is free of charge to search at the Registry of Deeds building. This presents some issues, Mr. Speaker. If you are being charged a fee and the fee is $5 to do a search and then $5 to drill down and go into specific fields that the search entry finds, is this really when we ask why the fee was charged – because not everybody has the same fair advantage if you are charging a fee to access this information to people who live outside of the city region, because other people then would have to incur high costs to come in and avail of the free service. Really, is $5 a deterrent for neighbours to search out this information for personal reasons?

If we are going to be fair and we charge a fee to the one person, we should look charging a fee to all people or we just eliminate the fee completely, Mr. Speaker. That is a suggestion there in relation to this. There are a whole bunch of people who are using this database when it comes to surveyors, lawyers, utility companies, financial institutions, the general public, and search firms. If we look at giving one group of users an unfair advantage of being able to come in and access the service for free, and for others, then maybe they are passing the cost on to the consumer in terms of the cost. We have to look at making that fair.

There is a $5 fee to do any type of search with that. It is clearly listed on their Web site. Is a fee like this disproportionately affecting people in the rural communities? They are forced to pay this fee to look up information while others can avail of the service absolutely for free. The staff at the Registry of Deeds is not allowed to do a search for somebody, so people cannot avail of that service from afar and tap into the free service.

What about the people then who do not have broadband access in this community? Are they really forced to travel to St. John's to make this search? How can they truly make this very fair? There is nothing in the law that states that an instrument must be registered with the Registry of Deeds. Is this in the best interest of the individual or the institution? It certainly is to have that registered, but this does not always happen.

We make company registration mandatory. Is there a reason we are not making mandatory the registration of property? Would this become a burden, a high cost, or a high administration thing? Is there some benefit to making the registration voluntary? There are certain questions I have there and maybe the minister would look at addressing that. It would seem that it would help us deal with certain issues of disputes if there were mechanisms that would make it mandatory.

I do have some concerns in the bill. When a number of these registrations are made, they are made by lawyers, they are made by financial institutions, or they may be made by others. If we look at when there is a name change being made, whether there is a marriage, a dissolution of a marriage, a divorce, or people are just changing their names, where is the enforcement piece to be adequately updating and for that protocol? I could be searching for information on an individual because the database is done on name searches. If I am searching for someone by what I think their proposed name is and not what they have changed their name to, then I might be searching for inadequate information. Every time I have to pay a fee of $5 if I do not have access to the office to do that type of search.

That is just a small concern that I have there when I am looking at it. Maybe there needs to be another mechanism to be able to search for instruments or notices of instrument. I know in the briefing it was said that when they do get this voluntary information, it is cross listed. If I am a financial institution, I am doing this search and somebody is going by a different name and all of these things, how is this having an impact? How are we making sure we are getting the clearest information there when it comes to updating it?

We certainly want to make sure that when we do a sale of property and when people acquire property, that they are getting fair information. It does seem that the bill put before us is looking at enhancing the legislation. When I also look at when we talk about payments, is the payment of ‘acception' a credit card payment or are there alternatives? Not everybody has access to a credit card or the ability. We need to make sure that the service is fair and available to all. I am sure the department would work towards making sure the largest database on property here is made more readily available. A lot more government services are becoming available online but it is not accessible by all when we have over 200 communities that do not have access to broadband Internet service.

Mr. Speaker, I will not go on in further details on this. I think Bill 14, the amendment to The Registration of Deeds Act, is cleaning up some of the information. It is providing for increased enhancements. There are still some efforts where we can see maybe the department can work towards improving access available to all. Maybe that will come with time but I see this as a good step. I look forward to more debate on this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): If the hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador speaks now he will be closing debate on the said bill.

The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to close debate and to respond to some of the debate and discussion that has occurred here this afternoon. I think it is important to clarify, when it comes to the registration of deeds, in Newfoundland and Labrador the process that we have is that the registration of deeds office is a repository. It is a collection of documents pertaining to the registration of real property.

If someone was to go to the registration of deeds, which has a searchable function, and ask them to determine or make a statement as to who is the rightful owner of a piece of property, they do not do that. That is not the intention of the Registry of Deeds in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Registry of Deeds is where the collection of documents occur pertaining – it is listed by name. It is registered under name right now. That is the process we have had in this Province for, I suppose, Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of time, where the property is listed by name, and then there is a trail that can be followed through following the process of names.

We do not have in this Province a Torrens system, or a system where the property is actually listed by identified parcels of land, which can be done by geographic location, it can be done by grids, it can be identified by certain parcels of land. We do not have that system. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in Nova Scotia they have been working for fifteen years or more, I am told, trying to implement such a system. What officials are telling me when we have these discussions about finding better ways to do things in this Province – because that is what we try to do in this government is to find what are the other ways of doing things. Let's not do things because that is the way we have always done it. We try and look at better ways to do it. One of the concerns we have, is changing to that other system we believe will result in a higher cost to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, if it is not going to give us a better system, if there is no strong argument today that yes, this is going to create great benefits to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, we are going to change the system for the sake of changing, at a cost to property owners, at a cost to taxpayers, at a cost to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, then to me, Mr. Speaker, that is not good reason to do so. Changing just for the sake of change is not good reason to do so. We should change it for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Looking at the experience of other provinces, and the case I pointed out, Nova Scotia, they have been fifteen years trying to change to that system and they are still trying to do that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Registry of Deeds is not a system whereby the ownership of property is determined. Now, Newfoundland and Labrador, if there is a dispute of ownership of property that is a matter for the courts to resolve. That is a civil matter to resolve. For example, I will use my own circumstances. If a person knocks on my door tomorrow and says: hello, I am here because this is my land. Then what I have done, when I purchased my real property, is I contracted a lawyer, a practicing, licensed, professional lawyer in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, to protect my interests, to ensure that I have clear title to that property. That lawyer will then set out on a course of action to ensure that they conduct proper research on the title of the land, on who previously owned the land, and when I am buying the real property of another person or persons, that person has proper title to the land and the people before them, and so on. Then I rely on that lawyer who is providing the service to me to ensure that as a consumer I am protected.

That is the responsibility of the lawyer. They do the searching of the title, they do the research, and they do that through the Registry of Deeds. Under law you have to file those documents with the Registry of Deeds so there is a history that can be researched and then my lawyer or an individual's lawyer who is purchasing property would then given an opinion to me or to their client: yes, look, you can now be provided with clear title to that land.

That is the process that we have in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the way it has been for many, many years. For us to change to a land-based system would require a significant amount of work. Newfoundland and Labrador is a very large province geographically and to register all parcels of privately owned real property in Newfoundland and Labrador would be a significant task with significant cost that would have to be borne by the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the land owners of Newfoundland and Labrador. The case of where is the benefit for those people has not been made for me, Mr. Speaker.

During the debate this afternoon, the hon. member opposite had taken the time to point out that he felt that he did not have enough time; he said he has been a couple of weeks now, or a few weeks – I think he said several weeks, but I think it is actually a couple of weeks now that he asked for, he has been looking for a briefing from the department, from officials in the department, and he did not receive it and he did not have enough notice. Mr. Speaker, what I say to the member opposite is that the bill here has been tabled in the House for some time. The information has been tabled here in the House for some time. I was not aware that it was the responsibility of officials in Service NL to do the research for the NDP party, I can tell you that, Mr. Speaker. I was not aware of that. They have the bill, they have the legislation, and they can conduct and carry out their own research. They can carry out their own research on it.

For the hon. member to rise in the House this afternoon and say he has not been given enough time, I think he is going to have to do his own work in the House, Mr. Speaker. He is a member of this House representing his district like all of us are here in this House and he is going to have to carry out his own research. We did provide a briefing for the hon. member and for other hon. members who requested it. I was not at the briefing. I did meet the hon. member over at my department office this morning. We exchanged greetings early this morning.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DAVIS: He did. He came over today and had some time with officials. Now he is here complaining about it. He has to do his own research, I say, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would remind the minister to keep his comments to the context of the bill.

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your guidance. I just wanted to respond to the member opposite.

Mr. Speaker, again, as mentioned earlier in debate, these are technical changes to the Registration of Deeds Act. We are making these changes in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are making these to clarify the processes and systems that are in place on the registration of deeds for this Province, Mr. Speaker. We are taking those steps. As articulated by members opposite, it is in the best interests of the people and it is a good piece of legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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 To Amend The Registration Of Deeds Act, 2009. (Bill 14)

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Registration Of Deeds Act, 2009", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 14)

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper Order 5, second reading of a bill, An Act To Ensure Access For Service Animals Used By Persons With Disabilities, Bill 17.

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

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


I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill 17 be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 17, An Act To Ensure Access For Service Animals Used By Persons With Disabilities, be now read the second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Ensure Access For Service Animals Used By Persons With Disabilities". (Bill 17)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise in this House of Assembly to open debate and move second reading on Bill 17, which is entitled An Act To Ensure Access For Service Animals Used By Persons With Disabilities. Mr. Speaker, the legislation currently in effect of this nature is the Blind Persons' Rights Act. That act, Mr. Speaker, protects the rights of visually impaired people to use trained guide dogs. That is the only piece of legislation we have to deal with disabilities of this nature.

Mr. Speaker, the intention of this bill today is to repeal that Blind Persons' Rights Act and adopt a new piece of legislation called the Service Animal Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. F. COLLINS: We can incorporate what is in the Blind Persons' Rights Act but we will expand that act to apply to trained service animals and not only to trained guide dogs traditionally used by persons with visual disabilities. Mr. Speaker, this bill will also ensure that all persons with disabilities who use service animals have the right of access to accommodation, right of access to services or facilities that would ordinarily be available to the general public. What we are doing here is repealing the Blind Persons' Rights Act, keeping what is in it for the visually impaired, and expanding it to other disabilities and other trained service animals.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to thank the Disability Policy Office for their significant contribution to this bill. They collaborated with the Department of Justice to propose the enhancements to the Blind Persons' Rights Act. Mr. Speaker, the Disability Policy Office works with all government departments and agencies to help develop policies and programs that include people with disabilities and that are barrier free. This work is important to ensure everybody has the same opportunities. It was through this co-operation that this government is taking further steps now to remove barriers that confront a person with disabilities and allow them to pursue lives that are free of obstacles and that prevent their full participation in society.

Mr. Speaker, the Blind Persons' Rights Act was adopted in this Province in 1981. As I mentioned earlier, this act prohibits discrimination and denial of access to accommodations, to services and facilities because a blind person was accompanied by a guide dog. In 1981 that act came in. Mr. Speaker, since the enactment of that act, there have been significant advances in the training and use of service animals. We see it all the time in the news, human interest stories, in documentaries, television, and the media. There have been significant advances in the training and use of service animals beyond the traditional guide dog. People with various disabilities, Mr. Speaker, can use service animals that are specifically trained. For example, people with epilepsy, people with autism, brain injury, people with mobility disabilities, people with mental illness and other disabilities, are benefiting from the use of trained service animals, trained to provide this disability-related support and accommodations that meet disability-related requirements.

Mr. Speaker, while the Blind Persons' Rights Act requires businesses to provide entry and service access to individuals who are blind or partially sighted and are using a guide dog, the legislation does not provide protection for persons with another kind of disability other than visual, who require the use of a service animal. Mr. Speaker, the use of service animals by a person with disabilities is a key factor for many individuals being able to access their communities, being able to access services, being able to access opportunities on an equal basis with others. Mr. Speaker, similar to guide dogs for blind people, service dogs help people with disabilities improve their abilities, their independence, and their personal safety.

Mr. Speaker, this bill can be best illustrated by a story that appeared in the February 4, 2012, Telegram. That article was called: Woman's best friend. The article was about a St. John's resident named Lesleigh Hiscock who has been diagnosed with epilepsy and recently obtained a service animal from the Lions Foundation of Canada Guide Dogs. She has a black Labrador Retriever, Mr. Speaker, named Ashton. That dog was trained as a seizure response dog. That dog warns Ms Hiscock of oncoming seizures and provides her with enough time to lie down or ensure she is somewhere where she is safe. Prior to obtaining this dog, Ms Hiscock said that she would often end up in the emergency room with broken bones and head injuries, following a seizure. As a result of getting Ashton, she says now her disability practically confined her – before she got the dog, her disability practically confined her to her apartment. Mr. Speaker, this dog has been a godsend to Lesleigh Hiscock.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, while Ms Hiscock has this trained service animal, there is no legislation that allows her to use this service animal so as to be able to gain accommodations and services in facilities, as is the case of a blind person. This act, Mr. Speaker, would ensure that Ms Hiscock and all persons with disabilities who use service animals, such as Ashton, have the right of access to accommodations, services, or facilities that would ordinarily be available to the public.

Mr. Speaker, now this Service Animal Act will continue to afford protections against discrimination of blind persons who use guide dogs and who make use of a white cane. In addition to these provisions of the Blind Persons' Rights Act, it will also include some extra provisions.

The definition of a person with a disability – which means a person who has a degree of disability and is dependent upon a service animal – will then be changed and expanded. The definition of a service animal has been expanded to mean an animal trained to provide assistance to a person with disability and having the qualifications prescribed by the regulations and used by a person with disability. Mr. Speaker, it has to be apparent that the service animal is used by the person for reasons relating to his or her disability or the person has a letter from a physician or a nurse or other persons who may be prescribed in regulations confirming that the person requires that service animal for reasons relating to a disability.

The act will also, Mr. Speaker, provide a prohibition against discrimination or denying a person with a disability who relies upon a service animal the accommodation or services or facilities which would ordinarily be available to the public.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, they will provide a provision for fines for violations of the service animal act, not more than $500 or a period of thirty days or less in jail for an individual, and a fine of not more than $1,000 in the case of a corporation.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that without this service animal act, and I repeat, persons with a disability other than visual and who use a service animal can only seek redress from discrimination now under the Human Rights Act. The people who are discriminated against by use of a service animal do have redress through the Human Rights Act.

Mr. Speaker, the Human Rights Act is a more complex and more time-costly process; and while at the end of the day it will get the desired result, it takes time to do that and it requires the complainant to assert their rights and pursue their rights, as opposed to the specific legislation such as this animal service act, which automatically provides the protection and clarifies the protection for a community at large.

Given, Mr. Speaker, the increased use of service animals by persons with disabilities other than visual; and, Mr. Speaker, given the ratification of the United Nations convention for the rights of persons with disabilities by Canada, which was ratified in March 11, 2010; and, Mr. Speaker, given our government's commitment to making sure that people with disabilities are included in all aspects of society, it was timely and appropriate now to adopt this new legislation to reflect the current reality of the use of service animals and expand the protection to be inclusive of all persons with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, to improve this legislation is necessary in order to ensure that number one, everyone is aware that service animals are not just restricted to a blind person but used by people with other disabilities to carry out their necessary everyday tasks; and two, to enhance the lives of persons with disabilities who use a service animal by guaranteeing rights and removing barriers such as landlord discrimination, for example, and refusal of service by people who are uneasy about having animals in their establishments, and so on.

So, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to discuss this service animal act, a very simple bill, but a very important one. I ask for support of all other members in passing it and I look forward to participating by the other parties and to the debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to speak to this new piece of legislation, and I thank the minister and his staff for providing an opportunity to have a briefing on this, what I think is a great piece of legislation, and certainly a step in the right direction.

As the minister just explained very well – and I am not going to reiterate everything; the fact is that what it seems like we are doing is we are moving from blind individuals to not just blind individuals but individuals with disabilities. So, really, this piece of legislation is moving toward – the world is moving in a better direction, and we are just adapting the legislation to take in these changes. It is impossible to eliminate discrimination completely, but you can certainly make a try, and I think this legislation is doing that.

I have had an opportunity to review the bill itself, and a lot of it is mainly housekeeping changes to change the provisions, talking about individuals that are blind to individuals with disabilities, and to expand the sections defining instead of just dogs, to service animals; I will speak a little bit more about that in a second.

Again, this is something you see fairly regularly. Actually, in a small town like Port aux Basques, we have a young lady that has taken advantage of a dog; it is just amazing when you think about it. I do not understand the training; I know there is quite a bit that goes into it, but to see these dogs and these service animals and how smart they are and what a great service they provide. I know back home, the Lions Club of Port aux Basques has done a lot to assist these individuals by fundraising and putting money into this. I think that is great, and they should be commended for that, as well as any organization that goes along to help people with disabilities.

So, again, the only thing I would note, Mr. Speaker, going through the bill itself – and it is actually not a very thick piece of legislation – I believe section 10 has been changed, the only change being that in the case of a corporation, the possibility of imprisonment has been removed and now it is just a fine. I am hoping that we do not see many cases of offences under this act, because if that is the case, then obviously that is just a despicable act by anybody that would do something like that.

Again, when you are talking about something like imprisonment, it is hard to discuss imprisonment, and when you are dealing with corporations you are getting into a whole new ball game there. Hopefully, this is not something we had to deal. When you are dealing with corporations a lot of the times the only way you can hurt them is by hitting the pocketbook if they choose to flout the law or not follow the legislation and the regulations. Hopefully, that is not something that has to be re-examined down the road.

What I would say, Mr. Speaker, again the minister stated very eloquently that as time has gone by we were mainly worried about the blind people and using dogs. Now, we know that animals have – I guess us, as being able to train and understand how various species work, now we know there are other animals that are being used as service animals. There are actually cases of monkeys that are used to provide services to their masters, we will say. There are also miniature horses that are being used. They can help with the blind or they can help people with Parkinson's disease. This was a necessary change, obviously. It is amazing.

We all know the intelligence of, I guess, marsupials. We evolved from the monkeys, but to perform manual tasks to people who because of a disability cannot do that, whether that be grasping items, operating knobs and switches, or turning pages of a book. All we are doing is making sure that these individuals who avail of these services are not going to be discriminated against. One of those big things in discrimination, whether it be acceptance into an establishment or, we talked about an issue like housing, to make sure people with disabilities - they have to deal with enough hurdles to get through to get housing. We all know that, but having another hurdle placed in front of them by not having their service animal allowed to be taken in with them, we are eliminating that hurdle, hopefully.

What I would say, Mr. Speaker, is that the act very clearly, or seems to under the definitions - a definition between what is actually a service animal and what is a comfort animal. That is an animal that a person keeps with them for more emotional reasons, but they do not provide any tangible service or provide any service such as the dogs, the monkeys, and the horses are using to help these people deal with the limitations imposed by their disability.

We see a lot of cases where people go around and they cannot be separated from their animal but unless that animal is providing a tangible service, then we do have to draw the line somewhere. A comfort animal is not trained to perform a specific, measurable task directly related to that disability as opposed to the guide dogs.

Again, I do not mean to belabour this. I think the legislation is very straightforward. I think it is a great step in the right direction when we discuss something that is so vital to us, something like human rights. I hope that the new changes get done what they are intended to do. That is always the goal when you are addressing legislation. I am sure this was done in consultation with various groups. These are the people who know firsthand the changes that needed to be made. I am glad to hear that the department took the opportunity to heed the advice and meet with these groups so that the right changes could be made.

One specific thing I really liked is the fact that landlords are prohibited from applying charges to people with disabilities due to their service animal. That is a big hurdle eliminated for these people. We have all known that these things have happened. To have it happen is terrible. This is going to get rid of that and that is a great thing.

I notice one change, and perhaps the minister can elaborate. It says we are prohibiting the use of a white cane by anyone who is not blind. I do not know if this is something that has been done a lot in the past. We are just trying to tighten things up.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have any further comments as to the legislation. I am sure if I do I will have an opportunity in Committee to ask the minister. More than likely they will be straightforward, specific questions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CROSS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Like the Member for Burgeo - La Poile, I do not really want to belabour this a long while. This is not a case of needing to stand up today but a case of wanting to stand up to speak to this issue.

I would like to thank the minister and the department for bringing this forward and making a change that broadens and amends this act, the Blind Persons' Rights Act from 1981. That is thirty years ago, so it is due to recognize the changes that have come about in the last thirty years with regard to the dignity and respect that we treat people with disabilities. It broadens it to include all other disabilities.

I recognize that the member opposite said this is a step in the right direction. I will just add that it is a giant step, I guess really. It is also a leadership step in Atlantic Canada. This is an act that is now currently in BC, Ontario and Alberta. We will be the first east of Ontario with this legislation implemented. I commend the department and the minister for that.

I am just going to respond also to add a little extra information on what the member said – the use of other animals to help and assist. When these animals are used, they are used so a person can have a complete identity. Without the use of the animal, there is something missing in the identity, the access and the freedom that this person has and the respect they have for themselves and their self-worth.

I have been a member of a Lions Club that has assisted in obtaining two guide dogs in the past for people with blindness. If you ever drive through Hare Bay, you will constantly see Mr. Cecil Collins out with this dog as you drive through – and I know the Member for Terra Nova would witness this and the freedom that gave. Knowing that man before he had the dog, knowing what he went through. There was another gentleman, a Mr. Goodyear from Lumsden, who has passed away since. He also went and we were instrumental – and I might have had the opportunity to go with him for six weeks to Ontario, but I was a teacher and it happened during the school year so I could not go. One of our Lions friends went with him. Again, how that changed that person's life, how having that dog changed access to the community, changed the ability to be a complete and a whole person and have complete respect.

The other comment that I want to add to what the member opposite said with extra animals like monkeys, there is also research done on ferrets and cats. Also the idea between the monkeys and the miniature horses is that the expense that goes into training an animal and the use that a guide dog would have would be for about seven years, whereas a miniature horse or a monkey, you could get up to twenty to twenty-five years potentially from one animal. It is in that training and in the cost efficiency, which is not what most people think about in this case. In that case, it does give more longevity to the one animal. The person would not have to go away and retrain another animal, because there is training as well. Every time an animal is brought into a person's life, that person also has to go and receive several weeks training; it is probably shorter the second time around. I know Mr. Collins in Hare Bay is probably on his third dog, or fourth. Gunner one and Gunner two, but I do not know what the name of the more recent one is, I sort of lost track of his –

AN HON. MEMBER: Gunner three, probably.

MR. CROSS: Probably.

We are all different, Mr. Speaker, and because we are individuals and we are different, we have our own unique identity. I have to use extra support for my eyes when I read. Without that technology, then life would be more difficult for me. That is a minor affliction in my life, but to have an animal that would give me access to places and rights to go means that it would be that much more dignity to my life.

The speakers have alluded to most of these things, but in the actual reading through the act itself, the biggest thing that is here is that if you have a guide dog or a service dog, it is probably more readily apparent for people in society to see a dog and the way it is tethered or leashed for a person with the dog and how that person acts to realize that that animal is for that purpose; but, if you are going to try to get on public transit with a miniature horse, or go into a restaurant, that does not seem something that would almost stretch the mind of the person who is on the other side of this activity, and then it would be more apparent as we become more accepting of all of the changes.

Again, this is a really, really good piece of legislation. It takes away discrimination, it takes away the barriers that are in a person's life, it gives dignity, it gives independence, and one can be included in society and play a fuller role. Again, the animal is not just for service; it is also for safety. There are times when the animal is trained to recognize dangerous, apparent activity that a person would not normally understand without that. In all, it gives a person a normal life, and normal is a great step forward – and we are leading again.

I just thank you for the time today, Mr. Speaker, to give these comments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

I am happy to have an opportunity to say a few words to Bill 17, An Act To Ensure Access For Service Animals Used By Persons With Disabilities. Obviously, this is an important act, and I am really glad to see that the minister and his department are on top of this kind of an issue, because it is so important to make sure that all of our legislation is always up to date – and I do not mean this in a cute way but always with the times in terms of where we are as a society, and where we are in our recognition, especially of creating an inclusive society. This is certainly an important part of how we create an inclusive society. There are so many ways in which we have to adapt things in society to be sure that everybody in our society, no matter what the disability, is able to function in that society.

We do have a long ways to go. There is absolutely no doubt about it. We still have buildings that are not accessible. We still have sidewalks that are not accessible in terms of people who may be in a mobile unit, an electric chair, or something of that nature that cannot go along a sidewalk and easily get onto the street. There are just all kinds of issues around accessibility in our society that we have to deal with. Today we are dealing with a very special one. That is one that has to do with making sure that persons with disabilities who use service animals are able to have those animals with them no matter where they are.

It seems to me that there are sometimes changes that have to be made to facilities to allow other kinds of accessibility, for example, for wheelchairs. It might also turn out there could be changes that public places might have to make as well to make sure that this act or this bill will be able to be something that will not cause any problems. It is extremely important we make sure when putting the legislation in place that people with disabilities are going to be able to claim their right to have service animals with them all the time and that will always be able to be met by public places, in particular, where they may be going.

It is going to take, I believe, some education of the public when this legislation is put in place. I would suggest to the minister I do not think we should just do it, it gets passed, and it goes out there as a piece of legislation. It is something that should be publicized and something that should have some public education attached to it as well, so that individuals, corporations, public places such as motels and hotels, and landlords who are renting apartments really know the rights we are giving to people with disabilities as we pass this piece of legislation, as I absolutely believe we must and should pass. It is absolutely essential.

I put that out to the minister. I would be interested in hearing: Do they have any plans yet with regard to how they are going to promote this bill? Obviously, I am sure that the community of persons with disabilities are going to be promoting it within their organizations. We also need to make sure that the general public is aware of the legislation also because they will have a role to play in ensuring that this legislation can be acted out in the daily living of the community.

I do not think I will say more, Mr. Speaker, because I think the minister and the other speakers have dealt with the issues themselves. In one sense it is a motherhood issue, but it is really important that we all have the time to say a few words to it.

We do have perceptions in society, we have perceptions and biases, and we need to have those broadened all the time, broadening the notion of who are the persons with disabilities who require service animals, and what those service animals might look like. We are way beyond the days of what used to be called the seeing-eye dog, and we all remember that phrase, the seeing-eye dog and the white cane. I see that the white cane is still in the legislation, and that is important, because people who are visually impaired, that is an important aid for them and an aid that is recognized.

We have a challenge to make sure that the service dogs that will come under this legislation become just as recognizable in our society as a symbol as the white cane has become and also as the quote-unquote seeing-eye dog has become. I remember, it seems like a long time ago – it was certainly on television; I am sure we all will remember – I think there was a campaign at one time with regard to the white cane to try to get people to recognize the white cane and to recognize what the white cane meant. I know it is a long time ago, maybe back in the 1970s, but I remember the white cane campaign. I think probably the term of the day, the seeing-eye dog, may have been part of that campaign as well.

I remember seeing posters and ads on television; you would see the person who is visually impaired with the dog in the harness and with or without a white cane, the white cane itself being promoted as the symbol, so that people would recognize that somebody who is coming with that cane or with a dog in a harness is somebody who was visually impaired.

I would suggest that we may need to get into some kind of a campaign like that to help people recognize that there are service animals now in use that are beyond the use of what was called the seeing-eye dog, which are now, of course, known as guide dogs. We will need to do that to make sure that our community is accommodating itself, is learning, so that people with disabilities will be able to claim their right as we have it here in this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Minister of Justice and Attorney General speaks now he will be closing debate in second reading on the said bill.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I just wanted to extend my appreciation to the people that took part in the debate, the hon. Members for Burgeo – La Poile, Bonavista North, and Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, for their comments and their support of this bill.

The only comment I would make, Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate is both members opposite made reference to, in the case of the Member for Burgeo – La Poile, the effect of sanctions on a corporation, and the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi referenced the need to do some publications here and advertisement, developing awareness campaigns, and so on. I agree with that completely and will be subject, of course, to direction and the guidance of people at the disability office and the stakeholders in the disability associations to help us out with that. I agree that needs to be done. Mr. Speaker, the first step in that, of course, is getting the legislation passed. Once the legislation is passed and gets vetted, then the education process begins and makes this a much smoother transition.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments and I now move this bill to second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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 Ensure Access For Service Animals Used By Persons With Disabilities. (Bill 17)

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Ensure Access For Service Animals Used By Persons With Disabilities", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 17)

MR. SPEAKER: The Deputy Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I call Order 7, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, Bill 19.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the hon. the Member for Labrador West, that this bill, Bill 19, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, now be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 19, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, be now read the second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act". (Bill 19)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Service NL is committed to doing what we can to make our roadways as safe as possible for the travelling public. As part of this commitment, we periodically review and amend the Highway Traffic Act as required to ensure that the Highway Traffic Act is kept current in its purpose of protecting the highways, the safety of the highways, and the safety of the people who use the highways in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, we are introducing a bill to make amendments to the act in two specific areas. The first is related to the consolidation of provisions for driving while suspended. The changes in this area will combine two existing sections of the act in order to streamline provisions and remove duplication in language for the offences of driving while suspended or driving while disqualified. The two existing sections in the act can be found under sections 43 and 73 of the Highway Traffic Act. This clarification will provide better clarity for the law itself. It will provide clarity for law enforcement officials as well in the laying of charges.

The second area is related to vehicle seizures and impoundment. These amendments will enable changes to the vehicle seizure and impoundment regulations under the Highway Traffic Act to create a more streamlined disposal process for unfit and low-value vehicles. This is a circumstance that faces law enforcement officers throughout Newfoundland and Labrador on a regular basis. These new processes will continue to provide protection for both vehicle owners and garage owners who tow and impound vehicles at the direction of police in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, to provide a little more detail I would like to look at some of the specifics of the amendments to give an overview of what we are doing. Again, Mr. Speaker, these overviews are fairly small, very small changes in the Highway Traffic Act; however, they are going to improve and streamline some of the actions available under the act when it comes to driver's licence suspensions and the impoundment of vehicles.

Firstly, Mr. Speaker, the consolidation of provisions for driving while suspended. Clause 1 through clause 4 of the bill consolidate subsections 73(2) and sections 43 of the current act to provide one section governing offences of driving without a licence, driving with an invalid licence, driving while suspended, or otherwise driving while disqualified. The provisions for penalties, suspensions, seizures and impoundments are contained in the new section 43 of the act.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, there are new authorities for vehicle seizure and impoundment. The bill provides new regulation making of powers respecting the seizure, impoundment and disposal of motor vehicles that are dangerous or unfit for use and for disposable of uninsured vehicles.

Mr. Speaker, this also extends regulation-making powers to provide for a separate process for disposal of unclaimed low-value vehicles that have been seized and impounded because the operator was driving while suspended, or the vehicle was uninsured, or the vehicle is dangerous or unfit for use. The registrar would determine whether a vehicle is a low-value vehicle based on the criteria set out in the regulations.

Mr. Speaker, all of these amendments are designed to make it easier for our law enforcement officials to apprehend those who are driving without a valid licence because it has been suspended for good cause, such as impaired driving, or for driving without an otherwise valid licence. They also strengthen the authorities for seizing vehicles that are used in the commission of an offence, such as driving without insurance, driving without a valid licence, or for driving an unfit vehicle. They streamline the process for disposing of those vehicles where they are left unclaimed by the owner and where the cost of seizure and impoundment exceed the value of the vehicle itself. In this way, Mr. Speaker, we hope to increase the deterrent against driving without a proper licence and against driving vehicles which should not be on the road in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, in our efforts to improve the safety of our highways there are a number of things that we carry out, our department and officials carry out on a regular basis. Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks I had the opportunity to meet with RNC and RCMP officials joining to discuss the safety of our highways and ways that we can improve our Highway Traffic Act. We can make amendments and improvements to our Highway Traffic Act in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We also meet with other stakeholders as well, Mr. Speaker, who have an interest in making vehicles and the operation of vehicles on our highways as safe as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate part of the contents of the bill that is before the House here this afternoon. That is the new regulation making powers respecting the seizure, impoundment and disposal of motor vehicles that are dangerous or unfit for use, and for the disposal of uninsured vehicles.

I want to talk for a minute, if I may, Mr. Speaker, on the impoundment and disposal of vehicles that are dangerous or unfit for use. This happens on our highways on a daily basis, where there are vehicles being operated on the highways of Newfoundland and Labrador that are dangerous or unfit for use, primarily because of a mechanical condition, quite often the age of the vehicle, the state of disrepair of the vehicles. There have been issues and concerns raised by our policing agencies in the Province with respect to the seizure of these vehicles, taking them off the highway. When vehicles are quite often taken off the highway, the next challenge is, well what do you do with the vehicle? That is what these amendments are going to do. They are going to allow for a streamlined process to deal with these vehicles as they are impounded and taken off the road.

Mr. Speaker, when a person operates a vehicle that is quite often an older vehicle, that is not fit to be on the road, it is in a poor state of repair, it may have tires which should never be used on a roadway, it can have issues with its suspension and brakes and other operations of the vehicle, it creates a danger for everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador. What we need to do, Mr. Speaker, is we need to have laws and powers in our Province that allow the police to have the ability to remove these vehicles from the road.

Now, there are options for a person to claim that vehicle if they decide they want to repair it, but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, the experience that police quite often have is that is not the case, because once the vehicle is removed from them, the people who are operating vehicles like this, they move on. They move on to try to find another one. What we need to be able to do, Mr. Speaker, is take these vehicles out of circulation so that they cannot easily be put back on the road when they should not be, because they are not fit to be on the road.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you today, and I thank my hon. colleagues as well for time to introduce this bill. I look forward to debate from members opposite, and members of the House of Assembly, and I will, as I always do, listen attentively to their comments and to their presentations here. These amendments are another important part of the evolution of the Highway Traffic Act, a significant piece of legislation, probably one of the most significant pieces of legislation that we have in the Province that affects the largest number of people in the Province on a daily basis. We need to ensure that our Highway Traffic Act provides the protection needed for the people of the Province who use our roads on a daily basis.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to be able to stand here today and make some comments regarding Bill 19, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.

As the minister stated in his opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, there are not a lot of changes to this act, but the changes do allow for increased safety of vehicles on our streets, and it does not involve any change in policy. As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the response, as the minister has stated, come from concerns that have been brought forward by the police in our communities, and these changes will enable them to better do their job. They have asked for some streamlining and consolidation, Mr. Speaker, of some of the language in the Highway Traffic Act. In particular, two existing sections, section 43 and section 73(2), are to be consolidated as they do seem to duplicate charges when it comes suspended drivers. The second aspect of this amendment also gives the police better legislation with respect to vehicle seizure.

Under this legislation, there is now a new process which gives the Registrar of Motor Vehicles a new role regarding vessels that have been seized, impounded, and disposed of while the operator was driving while suspended or the vehicle was uninsured, or dangerous, or unfit for use on our highways. I am happy to see during the explanatory notes, Mr. Speaker – I was a little bit shocked at first but after attending the briefing, I was glad that the options are still there for vehicle owners, if they do wish, to get the vehicle back and get it brought up to standards and fit for travel on our streets. I thank the briefing session for that.

Mr. Speaker, the one question that I did ask the office of the registrar was why they would want to increase more work for themselves. It is a fair amount of work, and I think it does give the registrar that option to make sure that vehicles do not go on our road in some condition that is unfit. I am happy to see that vehicle owners still and always have the option to claim their vehicles. I understand that the legislation in this respect has not been changed.

I am certain the garage owners, Mr. Speaker, especially those in rural areas, will be happy to see that the housekeeping amendments to the traffic act have been shouldered by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles. Previously, Mr. Speaker, the business owners had to go through all sorts of legal processes to notify owners and now this responsibility has shifted to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles. It kindly lets the garage owners off the hook in terms of responsibility, and cost, which is always a good thing for small business, Mr. Speaker. The registrar shall also determine if the vehicle is low value based on criteria and regulation and that the Canadian Red Book will still be used to determine the value of vehicle. The only thing that certainly jumped to my attention is the condition of the vehicles. I see the difference in Newfoundland and in Labrador, where you do have a lot of salt on the roads and vehicles are sometimes very quickly brought to a point where they are unfit for the roads. This is not noted in the Canadian Red Book value, and I think there may be some room for improvement here.

I do not have any problems supporting this amendment, Mr. Speaker. I think anything that helps our police bring safety to our streets is something that we should all support. I think, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not bring up the concerns – and I brought it forward on previous occasions and in Estimates – it pertains to rural areas where the use of a vehicle is contingent on the seasons. In my area again, vehicles are used for seven months, and due to the outdated software, if you may, and technology our vehicle owners cannot go on-line and register for seven months. They can do it for twelve months, but I think it is five months of the year, most people in Northern Labrador – not all communities – lose sight of their vehicles under snowdrifts. I think the matter is relative to this amendment, and I would like to see that all parts of this Province, including rural areas, including Labrador, can take advantage of opportunities offered by this government the same as everywhere else in this Province. I think it is important that everybody in our Province be treated fairly. I certainly had discussed this with the minister.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his amendments to the act and for listening to the police that are there to protect us each and every day. The highway safety act, Mr. Speaker, is there to protect us all. In any way that it can be improved, we certainly would endorse it.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Honourable colleagues, I rise in this House today to speak on Bill 19, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. I listened to the member opposite attentively, and I certainly appreciate the comments in relation to the support on this particular bill.

Road safety is extremely important, and this government works closely with law enforcement officials to ensure that our legislation clearly meets the requirements of officers as they perform their daily duties. Awareness is a very important aspect of road safety. Our government and other stakeholder groups are constantly striving to get the message out there to the drivers of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are working to prevent some of the practices which can contribute to accidents. Some key messages we must continue promoting are: do not drink and drive, do not use cellphones while driving, the awareness of moose on roads, do not text and drive, watch your speed and drive accordingly to road and weather conditions, and stay alert and avoid driving if you are experiencing fatigue.

As summer approaches, many of us will be driving to our favourite campsites, going to our cabins, visiting families and friends, or beginning a new adventure in this beautiful Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Highway safety is not, and must not be, an afterthought. It must be the way to begin each and every journey, and must be at the top of our minds at all times.

I would like to highlight the importance of vehicle seizure and impoundment when necessary. The amendments in Bill 19 will enable government to create a more streamlined disposal process for unfit and low-value vehicles. Currently, vehicles in Newfoundland and Labrador may be seized and impounded by a traffic officer when: a driver is driving while suspended, disqualified, or prohibited; a driver is convicted by the court for driving without the proper insurance and the registrar of motor vehicles orders the seizure; the vehicle is parked in a manner which interferes with specified uses of the highway; and where the vehicle is in a state of disrepair such that it might be hazardous to other users of the highway.

Vehicles may be seized or impounded when the vehicle is believed to be abandoned; when the vehicle was used in the committing of a crime or the owner or driver has been arrested; when the vehicle has been directly or indirectly involved in an accident involving bodily injury or death or involving property damage greater than $500, but when the vehicle is deemed dangerous or unfit. Vehicle owners must pay all fines and fees before it is released from storage.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has been working with the RNC and RCMP to enhance the legislation regarding vehicle seizure, impoundment, and disposal. The amendments will provide express authority to dispose of vehicles which have been seized due to driving without insurance, or a vehicle which is considered dangerous or unfit.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments to the Highway Traffic Act will enable the minister to make regulations respecting the seizure, impoundment, and disposal of vehicles seized under section 75, driving without insurance, and section 42 of the Licensing and Equipment Regulations, unfit vehicles, to implement the same provisions used for unclaimed vehicles seized and impounded for driving while suspended.

Once the minimum impoundment periods prescribed by the legislation are served, that process includes: holding the vehicle for at least thirty days past the impoundment period; notifying of the vehicle of registered or certified mail that the garage operator intends to dispose of the vehicle if the lien is not paid; showing proof that no security interest or judgement is registered against the vehicle; and obtaining approval from the registrar of motor vehicles to dispose of the vehicle. This disposal process is designed to protect both the garage owner and the interest of the vehicle owner and any others with an interest in the vehicle.

Mr. Speaker, hon. colleagues, thank you for giving me the time to emphasize the importance of the amendments of Bill 19. This will allow all stakeholders to protect the people of Newfoundland and Labrador by bringing safety to our highways.

I would also like to commend the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador and also thank the officials within that department. Also, I would like to commend the RCMP and RNC in relation to making improvements to the Highway Traffic Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I get some pleasure in rising to talk to this issue today and talking to this piece of legislation. We have come to a point where whenever you have to introduce a piece of legislation like this it is certainly recognition that there is a problem in the Province with older vehicles, particularly with drivers and uninsured vehicles. Perhaps some people are not getting the message.

Having said that, as regards to my view and our view when it comes to having to introduce some of these changes, there also has to be a recognition here that whenever you have to come out with a piece of legislation like this you have to deal with sometimes, and particularly in this case, a problem that is ongoing in society. I do not really think that government wanted to have to do this. I do not think that any of us want to deal with any of the inequities there because of people who are not paying attention to the law. We have to, so we are here today to do it. In some ways, I regret having to speak to this. At the same time, I take great pleasure in giving another tool to the police forces in order to carry on their work.

I would like to thank the minister as well for the staff briefing we got this morning. I must say the staff were eloquent in their words in giving us a quick breakdown on this one. Like I said, this one to us is a no-brainer. When we ask the questions as regards where some people's rights stand in this, we got good coverage out of that. One of the things that we noticed in this, particularly when it came to the seizure of vehicles, is that sometimes you have two people licensed on a vehicle. Sometimes a seizure of a vehicle may cause undue hardship to the significant other in the household, for example, who may have to have use of that same vehicle that was seized for whatever reason. That person is still able to apply for the early release of that vehicle at the same time. Those conditions and everything are offset in the Motor Vehicle Registration Division. Through the notice of vehicle seizure and impoundment, they can apply for early release of the vehicle. We are glad to see that those rights of that other person who is not an offender are still going to be covered here when it came to that. That was one of the important questions we had answered today when it came to that.

There are a couple of other things I just wanted to bring up when it came to this. It was great to see that there were going to be strong steps taken to take some of these invalid drivers off the road through insurance or vehicles that are being covered that are basically pieces of junk that should not be on the road these days. Vehicle maintenance is important. It is not only a right for the person to look after their vehicle, but it is the responsibility of that person to look after that vehicle. We do not know what is going to happen to a vehicle that is coming at us; we do not know what is going to happen to a vehicle even when we are taking a loved one in it.

When somebody does not pay attention to that, it needs to be seized. If the police have to do that because we are not looking after our vehicles, then so be it. I was going to say, Mr. Speaker, that this may be the last line of defence if you will – that government is going to be able to start dealing with problematic vehicles and everything too at the same time – before we end up talking about the possibility of having to bring back vehicle inspections. I think that it is paramount that we start getting the message about the junky vehicles that are out there. I am really glad to see the government passing on these particular measures to the various police forces in order to carry this out.

The provisions for disposal of seized vehicles – if a vehicle is only at a certain dollar value, one of the problems we understood was the simple fact that some garages, for example, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador were having a problem as regards to recouping some costs. We know that, for example, whenever a vehicle ends up on auction, we know now that the first people who are going to be looked after under this measure are going to be the garage owners. There is not going to be any problems for police forces to have garages participate in this particular set of rules that are going to be coming out.

The one thing that we would like to see as regards to a change in rules too that may help government take problematic drivers off the roads: more co-ordination with insurance companies regarding the non-payment of policies, for example. A lot of people just go out – and we have heard this from police as well, heard it from a lot of other centres, that they take that little insurance card and they slip that up over the sun visor and then they do not bother to put any more payments on their insurance. The card is still valid; however, they still owe a fortune to the insurance company that is left to chase them out around. They still have a legal document that is now out there being used fraudulently for another purpose.

When that vehicle gets pulled in, the one thing that the police officer looks for is that little pink card that we all get. He looks at the expiry date on it, says okay, Joe Wonder here who is driving this car has insurance and he lets him go because everything looks fine. When in actual fact when he goes down the road and has an accident, it was not fine. We would like to be able to see some sort of a mechanism where the insurance companies in Newfoundland and Labrador would be able to co-ordinate activities with the Department of Motor Vehicle Registration and be able to notify Motor Vehicle Registration, the various safety officers that we have working under Transportation and Works, and an excellent bunch they are. As well as that, to have the police forces informed that they just may very well have a problematic driver in the area, and to go and seize the plate and take the vehicle off the road anyway. Like I said, it may be an ounce of prevention for ten pounds worth of furor.

Again, when it comes to seizure and disposal of vehicles, I think I probably touched on just about everything here. We have a responsibility to care for vehicles, I already touched on that. It is nice to see that government is still going to be putting in that little measure and still preserving that little measure under the department of motor vehicles. It is not everybody in the one household who are going to be bad drivers but there is probably going to be one person who is going to be caused hardship in one-vehicle families, where that vehicle is seized. That co-driver is still going to have a right to have that vehicle released too at the same time. So, some rights are also protected in this.

With that, I will just thank again, Mr. Minister, your staff for the great briefing on this. I would like to also commend the police forces that are out there on the streets taking some of these bad vehicles and bad drivers off the road at the same time.

Thanks again for your time.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I too want to say a few words on Bill 19, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.

First of all, I would like to thank the minister and his department for the briefing they gave us. It was very informative. It is great for us who are not in the departments to get the opportunity to go over and visit and understand what the purposes of the bills are. When they do changes in the bills it is really nice to be able to get over and see what the changes are. We have very informative people in our departments. Every time I have gone over for a briefing yet, I have to say they were excellent in the questions we asked. If there are any other questions that we need, they are very, very informative to us. It is great for us as MHAs who are back here, who do not be working in the departments, to be able to go and get these briefings. Again, thank you to all the officials in the department.

Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here today is the Highway Traffic Act, and it is very important. The minister has a very important job to ensure that our roads are safe. Our government is working closely with the officials of the RNC and the RCMP and different officials of the highway traffic people who are out there everyday making sure that our roads are safe for the people who drive on it. The legislation we are bringing in here today is to help them with their duties, to help them do their job better and make sure that they have the tools, which we supply, and they have the sections in the acts and the laws to make sure they can do their job and make sure that the people on the highways get the best protection that they can get.

As a government, Mr. Speaker, we do a great job in our advertising. Our message that we do get out to individuals, you hear it on the radio, you read it in advertising and whatnot, is to make sure that our roads are safe. Like the hon. Member for Bonavista South mentioned about all the different advertising that we do, whether there is moose on the roads, drive slow with snow, and talking on your cellphone. Anyway, drinking and driving, and experiencing fatigue – and the Minister of Municipal Affairs is laughing at that one, and I know why. Anyway, these key messages are important. It is very important that we get it out there to make sure that our roads are safe.

The Highway Traffic Act is an important tool that we can use to make sure they – people who are driving back and forth everyday, and especially summertime, when you see there are a lot of families – like the hon. member mentioned about going to your cabins and whatnot, and we all drive. In this beautiful Province that we have, it is so good to be able to go to places like Bonavista. I know I enjoy getting out to all the different areas of the Province when I can. It is absolutely beautiful out there, and we all get the opportunity. There is a lot of traffic on the roads, and we have to make sure we are safe.

The main thing, like the minister mentioned, we have a lot of – and they are doing a good job of taking a lot of the vehicles off the road, but we do have occasions when there are vehicles that should not be on the road. It is great that we are giving the enforcement people – the hon. member just spoke a lot about it there that time – giving them the tools to be able to seize and take these rigs right off the road altogether.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak on another section of what the minister introduced there, too. There are a couple of different parts. He talked about the consolidation of two sections of the act. He talked about section 43.(1)(c) and 73.(2). These two sections deal with people who are driving while suspended or disqualified. Both sections basically do the same thing, but in the case of law enforcement officers, sometimes they can haul you in and charge a person under section 42.(3). The next time another law enforcement officer can haul you in and he could charge you under section 73.(2). You could be on the first offence on both parts of these things. You are doing basically the same thing, because you are driving disqualified or you are driving while you should not be driving, whether it is an impaired driving charge against you or whatever. Consolidating these two sections of the act will eliminate that. The law enforcement officers, if you get caught the first time, you will not get caught the second time. Then you will get the penalties, such as what the penalties are for imprisonment and different periods that you can have, depending on second and third time of this offence.

Mr. Speaker, basically what the minister is saying we are doing here, is we are going to take two sections of the act and we are going to combine them so that our officials know exactly what they are doing when they make a charge for people who are disqualified or suspended from driving. Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we, like I said earlier, give the tools that are necessary to the people that are out there working to make sure that our highways are safe and that we have the best safe highways in the country.

Again, I thank the minister for the opportunity to get up and speak on this bill. I thank his officials for giving us the briefing that they did. They did a fantastic job. Like I said, as one of us fellows that do not work in the departments all of the time, it is great for us to have the opportunity to go over and speak to the people that make up the laws so we can see how everything works.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador speaks now, he will close the debate in second reading on the said bill.

The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the members this afternoon for participating in this debate: the Member for Torngat Mountains for his participation, the Member for Bonavista South for his words that he had this afternoon, the Member for St. John's East, and also the Member for Cape St. Francis. I thank all who spoke highly of the officials in Service NL, and the briefing and information that they provided to them.

Mr. Speaker, I have many times in the House of Assembly here rose on my feet and have taken the opportunity to talk about the public service that we have in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the good work that they do in the day-to-day work that they carry out for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in the best interests of the people. It speaks volumes, I think, to have members from all parties represented here today to thank them for the work they have done and the information they have provided to them in their briefings that have been carried out. I thank them for those comments.

I would just like to move back to a couple of comments made by the Member for Torngat Mountains. One of his comments, I know he said it very lightly, was he was not sure why the registrar would want to have more work than the registrar has now.

Motor Registration Newfoundland and Labrador carries out, I think it is, a little over one-and-one-half million transactions per year. It is a significant operation in Newfoundland and Labrador in keeping records, licensing and testing of drivers, licensing of drivers, licensing of vehicles, and managing all of those pieces of information. I know the member opposite alluded to this, that this is going to actually improve how these matters are dealt with.

When we talk to the RCMP and the RNC, and how they deal with impoundment of vehicles – if I could just refer to that for a moment – they do it a little bit differently. In rural Newfoundland and Labrador, there are sometimes some challenges when it comes to the impounding of vehicles. In Labrador, as an example, you may have to go some distance. It is not easy to find someone all the time who is able to tow a vehicle to remove it from an accident scene or remove it to be taken off the road.

When it is towed in rural Newfoundland and Labrador at the direction of the RCMP or the RNC – most often in rural Newfoundland and Labrador we know it is the RCMP – then the challenge is faced by the operator of the garage, the service station, or the tow company: now what do I do with that vehicle? There have been significant challenges in those cases for rural Newfoundland and Labrador businesses and police to deal with the vehicles that they have now impounded, especially when the owner or operator of the vehicle has no interest in trying to claim it.

These amendments to the regulations will go a long way to lay out a framework where operators of garages in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and as well as in urban Newfoundland and Labrador, will now have the abilities and a step-by-step process to be able to deal with sometimes large numbers of vehicles that they can obtain. If I can speak for a moment as well, Mr. Speaker, on the RNC, I will use the example of the Greater St. John's area, and they quite often use one, two, or three major tow companies in the area. There are a number of them around and some of them I know are used quite often.

When they impound vehicles and they store vehicles, it takes a significant amount of space; it is a significant amount of work for the tow operators to manage their files and their paperwork pertaining to each individual vehicle. Sometimes they have to keep them for very long periods of time because the regulations do not currently allow for proper disposal of those vehicles. We are going to fix that problem not only for the police and Motor Registration and the registrar, as referred to by my friend from Torngat Mountains, but also for the businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador that work with our law enforcement officials to do that.

Another matter that the Member for Torngat Mountains brought up today – and a lot of people may not be aware of this and, Mr. Speaker, while it is a little bit off the legislation, I do ask you for a little bit of latitude to address it, as the Member for Torngat Mountains had brought it up; I think it is a very good point and if I can take a few moments just to address that. He talked about the registering of vehicles for a seven-month period.

On the North Coast of Labrador and some other communities such as Nain, Hopedale, Makkovik, Postville, Rigolet, Black Tickle, William's Harbour, Norman's Cove, and those areas, the roads are not plowed and not accessible by vehicle all year long. What the hon. member opposite addressed was the ability to register vehicles for a seven-month period; Motor Registration does allow that to happen, but the system on-line is not set up to afford the opportunity for those areas of the Province to actually register for a seven-month period.

I am pleased to tell the hon. member – and he did bring this up during Estimates; he raised a good point today, we took that information away, and I had a discussion with my officials on the point that he brought up during Estimates. We are actually working on that system right now. I believe – and I am hesitant; I cannot commit to it today, but I am thinking that we are going to be able to accommodate that system on-line for the people from the North Coast of Labrador and from those communities. We are working towards that and we hope to have some good news for you on it in the future. I will keep you posted if we are able to do, if we are not able to do it. I will make the commitment to the hon. member that we will keep him posted on any advancements in that process.

Mr. Speaker, there was a comment came from I believe the hon. Member for St. John's East and he referenced hardship cases and difficult cases that sometimes happen. The police in the Province sometimes will see cases where they seize a vehicle under a circumstance where, for example, if a person has been detained or arrested or charged, say, for an impaired driving offence and provisions allow for the seizure of the vehicle in some of those cases. The circumstance would exist that well, maybe that person has a significant other who may have responsibilities to their children, it could be a sick family member that they provide their much needed transportation for, and there can be a whole number of examples of those – and I think you referred to them as hardship cases that may exist.

The hon. member correctly pointed out that under the legislation there is a process where an early return of the vehicle can occur, and I think it is important point to point out for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador because we are not trying to make life difficult for everyone unnecessarily. If a person inappropriately uses a vehicle, it is not fit to be on the road, or is used in a commission of an offence in some of these circumstances that we see from time to time and if there is a good case to be made of why the vehicle should be returned, there is a process where an application can be made to the registrar, a case can be made to the registrar, who will use her good judgement or his – in this case it is her good judgement in trying to make that occur. It is a good point that you raised. It is a very important point, because we do not want to cause undo hardship to innocent people who are affected by the actions of others. I think that is what the hon. member is referring to opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to conclude my remarks. I want to again thank all the members on this side of the House, as well as the other side of the House for their comments this afternoon. I think it is a good piece of legislation. This is going to make our highways safer. When we make our highways safer, we make the Province safer for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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 Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 19)

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

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

MR. KING: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 19)

MR. SPEAKER: The Deputy Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, we call Order 8, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Works, Services and Transportation Act, Bill 20.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House of Assembly to open debate and move second reading of Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Works, Services And Transportation Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Minister, who is seconding the motion?

MR. HEDDERSON: Seconded by the Minister of Justice.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

It is moved and seconded that Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Works, Services And Transportation Act, be now read the second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Works, Services And Transportation Act". (Bill 20)

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is just a housekeeping item, an amendment that is very important in the sense that it will allow the Department of Transportation and Works the authority to move forward relating to the installation, maintenance, and removal of signs on, over, or adjacent to provincial highways. It also gives the minister the authority to establish fees and forms for the purpose and administration of the act.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot stress enough the importance of signage on our highways. Of course signage is there on our highways for information purposes. As important as well, it is there for safety purposes. Signs have to be installed in proper locations. Of course, as the minister and department responsible for our highways, it is imperative that we, as a department, be given the authority so that we can continue to erect these particular signs to ensure not only about safety, that we are putting them in the right spots, but also, Mr. Speaker, it is about the information part of it.

What we are talking about with regard to the signs is what we call Tourist-Oriented Directional Signage, which we will refer to as TODS. This TODS model was an approach that was accepted by the industry, by municipalities, and by most of the stakeholders that are involved in our tourist industry. Mr. Speaker, as a former Minister of Tourism, I can honestly say that one of the biggest complaints in years gone by from tourists who were visiting this wonderful Province of ours is the fact that the signage was not what they were used to on a national scale. We sought ways as a government to bring into effect a national system that would assist tourists in finding their way to our wonderful tourist sites and allow them to navigate our roadways in a manner which would bring them to where they needed to go. Again, Mr. Speaker, this is what I consider to be a friendly amendment to an act to allow my department, my workers, to maintain these signs, to erect these signs, and to place them in areas where they are most useful.

With that introduction, Mr. Speaker, I will open up debate for members opposite and certainly my own members here on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the comments on this bill, Bill 20. Mr. Speaker, there are some questions concerning this whole bill. I know the bill was passed before by another department and now they are just transferring the responsibility to the Department of Transportation and Works. This is a bill that has a lot of implications all throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, especially in the rural parts where tourism is very high and where a lot of the mom-and-pop tourism establishments and other stores depend on signage, Mr. Speaker.

I agree with the minister that safety is a major concern and safety should be high on – the number one priority, actually, to ensure safety on all of our highways. Once there is safety, we can look beyond. I heard the minister say that we are trying to get standards across Canada. As we all know, and we said it here in this House, everybody said it in this House on many occasions: Newfoundland is a bit unique. At times, if we are unique, there are different ways that we can promote our businesses, promote our tourism attractions, promote our stores, promote other things, that once tourists get in the Province – and not only just tourists, but other people travelling around Newfoundland and Labrador.

We are promoting Newfoundland and Labrador. We are asking everybody to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador. A lot of businesses expect and hope that they can promote tourism and promote their own business in such a way that we would want people to come to our area, want them to stay, and they would have some attractions while they are there, Mr. Speaker.

There are a few concerns I have with this amendment, Mr. Speaker. One of them is the amendment gives the minister the authority to establish fees and forms for the administration of the act. Once again, the first question that we are always going to be asked is: how much are the fees? That is always going to be a major question. If someone wants to go in this Corridor 1 and wants to be part of this signage, what are the fees? How much would they have to pay? Is it a yearly fee? Is it a monthly fee? If it is a tourist operation, Mr. Speaker, which is only open, I will say, six months of the year, do you pay for the six months or do you pay for the full year?

I mentioned to the minister earlier that is just one of the concerns that is going to be raised with the act itself: how much is it going to cost the mom-and-pops or the small operators who are working, open four, five, six or seven months of the year? It is a major concern. When you see that the fees can be established by the minister, it is a concern. I am not saying that anybody would just jump the fees up, but it is always nice – people, before they get involved and before they agree to go ahead, they need to know whether to sign on the dotted line, they need to know how much it is going to cost, and it there if going to be a yearly fee or just seasonal fee. That is a major concern for a lot of people.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned to the minister earlier the amendment puts the authority on the Department of Transportation and Works. The question that I asked the minister, and I know the minister will answer it later: will this take away from the work of the Transportation and Works personnel who are doing maintenance on the roads? We hear here in this House, and I am probably one of the ones that bring it up the most: the maintenance on the highway, just doing the shoulders of the roads, doing the guide rail along the way; it is a concern for all of us and I am probably one of the biggest critics saying that we need more people doing a bit of maintenance on the roads.

This is what I was asking the minister earlier. I asked the minister: will this take away from the work that is being currently done by some of the workers on the road, the maintenance workers throughout, or will it be tendered out? That is question that I know the minister is going to take note and answer later, because if it is going to take away – if we have to go around for the first year or two years, or whatever it takes, to go ahead and to ensure that these signs are down and the Department of Transportation and Works personnel is taking down these signs, then we need to know if it is going to take away from their other duties. That is very important.

The other thing, I know the minister mentioned it to me and I thank the minister for mentioning it to me earlier, is if the signs are taken down – some of the big concerns before, if someone spent a few hundred dollars or more on erecting the sign, will the sign be available for the owner to come collect? I know the minister mentioned to me earlier the idea is to, if they take down a sign, if they have to take it down, because the onus will be on the individual to take down their own signs – but if it is not, if the department takes down the sign, will they have it in storage so somebody can come get the sign instead of destroying the sign somehow? As we know, when we you take down two or three sheets of good plywood, sometimes it can go away pretty quick. We do not know where it goes.

If somebody owned the sign, they should have the opportunity to come and get their sign and get the equipment that goes with the sign. It could be some important stuff that they need. They could put it somewhere on their building. It could be put somewhere in front of the building, on the side of the building to help promote it. So that is one thing that the minister said, from my understanding, that if the Department of Transportation personnel do take it down, that they can definitely have a storage area where people can come pick it up.

From my understanding of the legislation, once we get Corridor 1 completely done – and the minister could clarify this later – which is 8.5 metres wide, and immediately adjacent to the right side of the highway or gravel shoulder, once that is done, from my understanding, all other signs off the road, which are further off, will be taken down. The onus will be on the owner of the signs. If that is not done, then personnel – or it is tendered out – will take it down.

I will use a good example. If you are out in Lark Harbour, I know there are some beautiful signs out in Lark Harbour. They are well off the road, and are not affecting the highway. I do not know if it is on private property.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: It is pretty close to private property, signs to instruct people how to get down to this certain inn. I will just use that for an example. It is just there, it is not on the road, it is not causing distraction – will this sign have to be removed? That is the kind of question that I am being asked, and that is the kind of question that I hope the minister can ask, because Corridor 1, once you get 8.5 metres off the road, and then anything beyond that will be removed.

There are a lot of signs that are not affecting the highway. It is not a safety hazard because it is not close enough, and it is big enough, Mr. Speaker, off the road that once people say okay, it is close somewhere, they can see the huge sign. So that is a big concern. If it was just a safety concern, establishments like this one going out in York Harbour definitely have to be considered, Mr. Speaker, with it.

Also, we look at finger signs. The question a lot of people are asking is – and this is a major concern that has been expressed to me, and I am going back a number of years, to finger signs. I will use this, for example, Mr. Speaker, if you are going towards York Harbour and Lark Harbour, there are probably ten businesses out there. You have one sign with five, ten, or fifteen finger signs on it, is that a bigger safety hazard than having signs along the road and back off the road? What is the opportunity of seeing a sign if you have one sign with eight or ten finger signs on it, Mr. Speaker?

That is a big concern of a lot of people who own the establishments and who work with establishments. I know the Member for Port au Port had concerns with this years ago when there were signs taken down his way. This is why we need to all work together to try to get this done, the safety reason. The member also is very concerned about this. This is why, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of questions here that need to be answered. If you have eight or ten finger signs on an eighty-kilometre road, what is more of a safety hazard: trying to pick out which one of the eight or ten signs is actually the one you want, looking at trying to read, or having them further back off the highway in a so-called Corridor 2, a bit larger signs, so it is easier to recognize and easier to read and easier to look at? You can assure the safety is not there and is not involved with the snow clearing. It is not in any way a hazard to the operators of the snow plows. It is away from the shoulder of the road –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: – and off from the Transportation and Works right-of-way. That is a question that has to be asked.

There is another question, Mr. Speaker, that I will pose to the minister. I know the minister will answer this. It says here: Municipalities will be permitted to make their own signage regulations for roads within the jurisdictions. From the original act, and the minister can correct me or explain it to me after, they can make their own signage regulations for the roads.

My question to the minister, and he can clarify it later, is: Does this mean that if you are going through a municipality, but it is still a highway – and I use the South Shore Highway – and the minister is saying if it goes through the highway, then the department does have the authority? That is going to be a concern for some municipalities, and I will explain to you why, Mr. Speaker. This was brought to my attention. You can see some municipalities and they will not have to take their signs down.

I will give you a good example, the Town of Humber Arm South, a very large community. I know the minister is aware of the Town of Humber Arm South. They have a billboard up, Mr. Speaker, entering their town in Halfway Point. On the billboard they give community events, the next town meeting. If this regulation goes through as is then this town will have to remove their community billboard which they put up. They put community happenings and community council meetings, any major event that is happening in the town. The municipality will have to remove their billboard, and you can see that it is great for the town. That is going to be a concern I say to the minister, that some of the towns are going to be bringing to your attention at that time.

There are other signs in the area, smaller signs which may not be tourism related, which may give some side streets - turn left coming up or other issues. The other thing with some of this, I say to the minister, is that the towns would love to be part of the regulations, of course. They would not break any regulations whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, I know they would not break any regulations but they also would like to inform their residents that the happenings of their town are going ahead, and that this could promote it probably. That is a concern, Mr. Minister. If you could address that later when you finish or when we get into committee stage, some of the questions that I will be asking.

Mr. Speaker, another question is: How long will it take to have, in Corridor 1, all the signs up? If we could remember, and I have a few notes on it here - I guess the minister, I am not sure if it is the correct minister who could answer it because it was not his department at the time. It was $400,000 that was estimated for more than 1,800 illegal signs on the provincial highways. I think it is the Minister of Municipal Affairs who was the Minister of Government Services at the time. My question was what happened then? Why did the department - and I know it started out in Port au Port. I think there was some confusion there with the signs. I know in some other areas there was a lot of confusion with the signs.

There was $400,000 put aside, Mr. Speaker, to clear the roads of the signs. The questions I get asked: Was that $400,000 spent to do this work? Was it tendered out? Did the department do it? Was any of it done? I remember, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the minister could because I know the minister was not involved with it at the time but I am sure he could get the information. There were a lot of problems when they first started that. I think it was out on the Port au Port Peninsula. I stand to be corrected, but it was out on the Port au Port Peninsula that it was first started out in that area. There were a lot of upset people over it because a lot of them had their own signs up promoting their own area. They came down, and the next thing you know the signs are gone. Then whatever happened to the department at the time, and I cannot answer this, is it just stopped.

My question to the minister – and the minister can address this later. My question to the minister is that this was put forth April 22, 2009, over three years ago. I know the minister was not this current minister but I am sure he can get the answers and address it. This was put in. If it was such a safety concern then for the mom and pops and the smaller towns to promote their tourism, to promote their spots, promote their restaurants, why wasn't it done three years ago? Why was it put on hold for three years?

All this bill does here now is transfer from one department and give the authority to the Department of Transportation and Works. I say to the minister, I repeat it again, I know you were not involved. This is just coming to you now. Somewhere in government someone will have to explain to me that if it is such a priority now to get this done – Mr. Speaker, I know they are over there listening to me attentively because I know a lot of members also are going to face a lot of upset people in their areas. They may not be able to say it but they will.

The question that I ask, Mr. Speaker, is that if it was such a major safety concern, why three years later are we going to go back at it now? That is the big question. When you get down to say Lark Harbour, York Harbour, Cox's Cove and you have a big sign up that is not a safety concern, it is off the road but it is large enough, Mr. Speaker, that you can see it and give you proper directions, and there is no safety concern, my question is why can't it be there? That is the question.

If it was a safety concern they all would have been taken down as when it was first implemented back in 2009, over three years ago. We have this back on the radar again. I know I asked the minister before and I will ask the minister again, when will this start? How long do you estimate to have the Corridor 1 signs up? How long do you estimate to have the Corridor 2 signs?

I will explain to the people who are listening: Corridor 1, I think, is 8.5 metres from the right of way and Corridor 2 is anything beyond that. From my understanding from the minister and from the way the act is, the 8.5, Corridor 1, will be done first. Once we get Corridor 1 first with the finger signs up – I look at the minister for confirmation; once the Corridor 1 is done and up, implemented, then they will work on getting rid of the signs out of Corridor 2.

One of the questions that I ask the minister is: how long will it take to get Corridor 1 done? Is there a cost associated with it? That is another big concern. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, there was $400,000 in 2009 that was put aside for it. I am not sure if that money was spent. The thing at the time was that the onus was on the owner of the signs to take it down. The question is: has the cost gone up and was the money spent prior to – and my question is, then: is that just for Corridor 1, is it for Corridor 2, or is it for both, and to see the cost of it.

Mr. Speaker, there are concerns with this bill. I will express them. I know there are some groups that are very supportive of this, but I know there were some people who expressed concerns about it – expressed a lot of concern about it. There are a lot of questions that need to be asked concerning this bill. In the scheme of things, we all look for safety, there is absolutely no doubt. I know the Minister of Education is over there attentively listening. I thank the minister, because I know it is a very important issue for all of us: safety. I know the minister is very concerned about safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I thank the minister for that, Mr. Speaker. He is very attentive and I thank him for that. If we can remember, Mr. Speaker, back when this was being implemented – remember the big Jiffy Cab, 722-2222? Remember that, Mr. Speaker, the big controversy about taking down the cab coming into St. John's because we are removing all signage? It stopped – it just stopped. I ask the minister, if it was such a safety concern at the time, why was it stopped? I know the minister will ask to find out why it was done.

Mr. Speaker, I will sit down now, and I am sure I will have another opportunity to ask the minister some questions. I just wanted to thank the minister. I will just let the people who are listening know I went over and I spoke to the minister and we discussed it. The minister did say that he will address some of these concerns on this bill about the workers mainly, and will it take away from the workers who are doing the maintenance on the work.

He also mentioned about going through municipalities; I look forward to the minister explaining that, about going through the municipalities. Once again, I need a timeline and the cost. It would not be fair for me to stand up and vote for a bill, to say: here is the cost of implementation, when I do not know the cost myself. It is pretty hard for me, for the tourism operators – and I will use the Bay of Islands, for example. As critic for Transportation and Works, I have to enclose all Newfoundland and Labrador – you cannot say I support putting up these signs; we do not know what the cost is, do not know if it is a yearly fee, monthly fee, if there is going to be a seasonal fee. That is the kind of question that I ask the minister.

Mr. Speaker, the last point that I will make, and I am not sure if the minister is willing to do this, and I know I am going way back on this; I know there were consultations a long while back on this, I say, to the minister: is there any way, before we implement this, that we can have public meetings, just a few around the Province, mainly for the smaller people in the tourism industry? If we can explain it to them, go out and say, here is what we are doing, we are going to hear some concerns, we are going to hear some great suggestions, and we are going to hear some ways that we may be able to improve this, Mr. Speaker.

That is one of the concerns; I do not know if the minister can do that. I do not know what the timeline is to start this Corridor 1. I do not know what the timeline is to have it completed, and Corridor 2, I would say a lot of these signs are in Corridor 2. A lot of them, Mr. Speaker, I would say are in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, where a lot of the smaller operators are dependent upon signage and are dependent upon making sure people come in. They know where their establishment is and they know where their business is. I ask the minister if we can have some public hearings and consultations to inform the people. That is just something for the consideration of the minister.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the members opposite for their consideration, co-operation, and assistance as usual for helping me go through this bill. I thank the minister again for his assistance in explaining some of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not going to be as long as Eddy now. The hon. Member for Bay of Islands, I should say; I stand corrected. He has pretty much covered off everything I was going to talk about. The one thing that I will talk about with regard to this piece of legislation is the regulations that they are going to be bringing in, the changes. There are a couple of concerns. I guess, in short, a few questions as to why government is not going in a certain direction. We do know the need, of course, for signs, but signs can be, at the same time, boring and everything. I am wondering about a little bit of creativity when it comes to signage and everything.

Again, the Member for Bay of Islands talked about my former workplace, Jiffy Cabs, and how they had that notable bug up on the side of the road, which actually became a tourist attraction in itself. A lot of people who I ran into talked about that as being one of the principal landmarks as they were coming into the city. Of course, me, working there at the same time, I knew exactly, from hearing from people with regard to that particular sign. It was a sign that a business had put out there. There was no untoward oil spills or anything like that, such as were rumoured, such as were passed on to government at the time because there was no engine in the vehicle, Mr. Speaker. There was no transmission in the vehicle. The doors had concrete on the inside of them. There was no glass. It was actually painted sheet metal and everything, and the thing was cemented into the ground too at the same time. It was a great little piece of advertising. It was a great marketing trick.

We can understand the need in some cases for signs and possibly the TODS system at the same time. We sure would like our tourists to know where they are going and to know where their various services and everything are, but signage is supposed to be able to garner interest from the driver too at the same time to know where they are going and to know where their services are. There is nothing wrong, at the same time, for a government to be advertising, I do not feel, or to allow a business to advertise. A particular distance off the side of the road, yes, so that it is not that much of a distraction for safety purposes obviously. Creativity is the hallmark of government's advertising program too when it comes to tourist. Is it not? We know it is. It is an award-winning program, and congratulations to the government for coming out with it; but; at the same time as that small business, big business, every other business that is operating in Newfoundland and Labrador should certainly have the right to express their creativity and their marketing, and to be able to pull off a little trick such as Jiffy Cabs did, or such as O'Brien's Whale Tours, for example, do with their signage and everything.

I would certainly hope that government is going to open up a door, a little bit of door for creativity when it comes to allowing small business to put up their own signs, too. Yes, I can see where there should be a certain standard when it comes to the green-bordered white road sign, or the white-on-black highway traffic signs and whatever, the yield sign – I can see that. I can see that when it comes to drivers' attention on the roads and knowing what the speed limits and everything are, but at the same time, I think we have to loosen up the range just that little bit so that a business can use its creativity in order to attract business in there.

So, I would hope that government is going to be looking at that in the future, but at that the same time as that, the legislation there, it is what it is. Again, if it is going to change the rules a little bit from the old standard, the Corridor 1, Corridor 2 may be a good thing, but I am looking, at the same time, where we have to be asking questions. For example, for the old rules that were in there – I think they are the old rules; I will see if I do not get this one mixed up. Outside a municipal area within 400 metres from the centre line of a highway for the postage of a sign – that is a quarter of a mile, that is 1,312 feet, I think it is, from the centre line of a highway. As soon as you get into a municipal area, you are talking about sixty-five feet or twenty metres from the centre line of a highway. That means a little bit of visibility. I do not know if I am going to look directly into the woods 1,300 feet to look for advertising in a sign if it is going to be outside of a municipal area, which brings up another question. I get out to Butter Pot and I am looking at the sign that says City of St. John's city limits. So, we are gone an awful length of highway just to get out of town to find a change in the signage rules here. So, I think that there has to be a little bit of reason brought in here when it comes to that.

That is all I can see in these. At the same time again, I would really like to see government – there is no reason why Transportation and Works, for example, should not be able to co-operate with Tourism, Culture and Recreation and come up with a very valid and very creative marketing campaign. Anyway, I will leave it at that, Mr. Speaker, that is probably about all I have to say on this one.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Minister of Transportation and Works speaks now –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of time –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the Minister of Transportation and Works speaks now, he will be closing debate in second reading on the said bill.

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just as I started off indicating that this bill is simply a friendly amendment, I call it, nothing to do with the highway signage regulations. It is about bringing the authority for us to erect signs and to take them down. The debate of the hon. members on the other side is a debate that took place, I would think, probably in 2008-2009. It was a debate, and it was a very emotional debate.

All of what these two hon. members brought up right now was taken into account, decisions were made, and ownership was taken over with regard to where we were going by Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador, by Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, because they realize that you cannot just loosen up regulations. You are dealing with a highway where people are going along at least 100 kilometres an hour. There is no room for error. If you are saying, yes, put a Volkswagen bug here and put another one there and another one here, because it looks so cute. There is cement in the doors so it will not tip over and all of that. Do you know what you are saying? You are saying to us: Throw out all of the regulations; throw them all out. There is no need of them, because we have to cater to the businesses that are out there.

I say to the hon. members on the other side: You have to careful what you ask for because, again, you are stepping back, you are not stepping forward. Creativity is fine, and you can look at the ads and the creativity that went into the ads – the best in the world as far as I am concerned, the best in the world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: This tourist industry is about making sure that we are catering to the people who are coming into this Province, who are looking for cute sights – do not get me wrong – and there are appropriate places to put them, but not on the side of a highways where people are travelling along at 100 to 120 kilometres an hour and people are getting out taking photo shots and compromising the safety of themselves and others, Mr. Speaker.

This is about giving us the authority to make sure that – not only the type of signs that are going up, Mr. Speaker, but where you place them. In Transportation and Works we are about safety. We do not compromise. We do not loosen, not even a little bit, when it comes to safety, Mr. Speaker. We do not give no Corridor whatsoever when it comes to the safety of the motoring public.

I say to the hon. members that I will take the questions that you have put forward, and I think a more appropriate place would be in Committee, I will go through the questions that you put forth, in the interest of time, because we are getting to a point right now where we are getting to the end of the close of the Legislative day.

I will say, again, that we need regulations. We worked hard as a Province with the stakeholders to make sure that we have the proper regulations in place, and loosening up regulations are not in the cards I would have to say. We deal with municipalities and, again, I will come up with more specific answers on that.

With regard to the work that our workers do in Transportation and Works, I cannot speak highly enough about the work that they do in trying to maintain our roads, making sure that they are safe roads for the people who use them. When it comes to the budgeting, we budget enough and take into account what the cost and the resources that are needed to place these signs. That has been added into our budget; it is a line in our budget. So, it is not taking away from other maintenance issues, such as repairing damaged roads or guide rails, or so on or so forth.

In the interest of time, Mr. Speaker, I am just going to ask that we move on to second reading. In Committee, I will certainly go back over the questions that the hon. members have put forth. I will make sure that I have the answers so that we can go through them in a good fashion. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would call upon us to move forward to second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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 Works, Services And Transportation Act. (Bill 20).

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

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

MR. KENNEDY: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Works, Services And Transportation Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 20).

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It being 5:24 in the afternoon, I do move, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that this House do now adjourn.

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

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.

This House now stands adjourned until Monday, 1:30 of the clock.

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