December 3, 2009           HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS         Vol. XLVI   No. 34


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the Chair would like to welcome Ms Joanne MacDonald who was recently named chair of the first Provincial Advisory Council for the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities. Ms MacDonald is also accompanied by other members of the community of persons with disabilities and we welcome you to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard: the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's East; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; the hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North; the hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale; the hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in this hon. House today to pay tribute to the St. John's Lions Club in observance of their sixtieth anniversary.

During this time their members have tirelessly been serving the needs of those in St. John's. With projects ranging from the Bannerman Park Swimming Pool, St. John's Memorial Stadium, and the Lions Park; the St. John's Lions Club is committed to bringing the unparalleled services of Lions Club International to St. John's.

This club has a long history of charitable work in the city. In earlier years, they donated $65,000 to new dormitories at Mt. Cashel, $25,000 to purchase a new VON mobile health van, $25,000 towards construction of a new CNIB building, and over $65,000 to the Candlelighters to purchase special microscopes for the Janeway Children's Hospital.

In recent years, the club has donated over $100,000 for an Argon Laser at the Health Sciences Centre and at present have committed $15,000 to the new "Teen Room" at the St. John's Boys and Girls Club. As one would expect, they also continue to collect used eyeglasses to be shipped and distributed to Third World countries.

Mr. Speaker, for sixty years, the St. John's Lions Club has sponsored the 510 Air Cadet Squadron and this represents the longest continuous sponsoring committee of an air cadet corp. across Canada. Since 1976 they have supported the Lion Max Simms camp for the handicapped.

Truly, Mr. Speaker, if volunteerism is the heart of the community, for over sixty years the St. John's Lions Club has exemplified this.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join with me today in congratulating the St. John's Lions Club on sixty years of service to St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, at the recent Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador Convention in Gander, the towns of Bay Roberts and Spaniard's Bay were presented with provincial awards.

The Town of Bay Roberts received the Tidy Towns award for a population category over 3,500. This award is due to the work that the town and its residents put into becoming more environmentally conscious and improving the town's overall look.

The second award was shared between the towns of Bay Roberts and Spaniard's Bay in the category of environmental sustainability for their efforts at the Shearstown Estuary. This award was the Torngat Municipal Achievement Awards program, an initiative of Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador recognizing the exemplary efforts of member municipalities in serving their residents and improving quality of life in their community and in the Province as a whole. Environmental sustainability is at the forefront for both of those municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the towns of Bay Roberts and Spaniard's Bay on their recent provincial awards.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the Mi'kmaq people of Conne River, and in particular, the literary talent of Chief Mi'sel Joe. This summer at the annual powwow in Conne River, Chief Joe released his second book, entitled: Mi'sel Joe: An Aboriginal Chief's Journey.

This book chronicles not only his own life, but it also provides a very accurate depiction of the history of his people and his community during the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, and provides us with some insight into the Mi'kmaq history, traditions and cultural heritage. His next work will tell the story of another remarkable Aboriginal, Sylvester Joe, who guided William Cormack in his travels of the Province and Island interior. We look forward to this book, as well as the sequel to his first book, Muinji'j Becomes a Man. It is through literature such as this, that we can all learn about and understand the challenges, successes and special skills of our native Mi'kmaq people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all members of this hon. House join with me today to deliver accolades to Chief Mi'sel Joe on his second publication. We look forward to more to come.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to extend congratulations to the residents of Conche on being named the winner of a 2009 Tidy Towns competition, in the 350 residents or less category. This is the first year for Conche entering this competition, and to be named this year's winner is a tremendous accomplish.

The school children, town council, and team of eighteen volunteers spearheaded the cleaning effort, some of which included clearing the fish gear from around the wharf and cleaning the beaches. The school children collected recyclables and also adopted a piece of property in the town that they were responsible for cleaning and maintaining.

Mr. Speaker, the undertaking by this community to improve their beautiful surroundings has not only been an educational experience for the children, but has also given the residents a community of which they can be proud.

I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending congratulations to the Town of Conche on receiving this honour, and best wishes for continued Tidy Town success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am beaming with pride as I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate and recognize the Kinsmen Club of Green Bay for capturing not one but two national awards. One, the Ken Pierce Membership Growth Award which honours a club whose membership has increased within a Kin year; two, they were the proud recipients of the National Outstanding Boake Efficiency Award in recognition of effective and efficient administration that promotes a standard of excellence in Kin clubs. President Norm Dicks and his club are to be applauded for their outstanding service and dedication to their community and, indeed, to the entire region.

Hon. colleagues, please join with me in saluting the Kinsmen Club of Green Bay for achieving these two prestigious awards. I wish them continued success in their future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as the House is not open on Sunday I would like today to mark the twentieth anniversary of the Montreal massacre. Fourteen young women were murdered because they were female engineering students. Decent people throughout the country were shaken by this horrific event.

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, women in our Province have not been spared from such brutality. In 1984 an Inuit woman, Marguerite Dyson, living in what is now my district was viciously killed in a boarding house. From her tragic death has sprung a wonderful initiative, a supportive housing unit for women poignantly named after her, Marguerite's Place, but the work must continue. In the past twenty years, more than twenty women have been murdered by their partners in Newfoundland and Labrador and many more have been injured.

I urge all Members of the House of Assembly and all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on this solemn anniversary to join together and let their voices be heard to say: stop the violence, because women deserve to live with dignity, respect and equality in our society.

I ask that all hon. members remember December 6 by attending the vigil on Sunday at Memorial University in the Engineering Building in room EN-2006, or whatever event is occurring in their own communities.

I would also like to ask the Speaker if he could ask all members in the House to stand for a moment of silence to remember Marguerite Dyson and the fourteen women who were killed on December 6, 1989.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MS BURKE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it is unusual to make a point of order during members' statements, and I know that in the Standing Orders the subject matter of a member's statement in our Standing Order 25(4) it says, "The subject matter of a Member's Statement may be an anniversary, historic event, some particular accomplishment, the death of a notable person, matters of local, provincial, national or international significance of a non-contentious nature."

Mr. Speaker, the next minister's statement is going to be by the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women who is addressing a very similar issue. I know that these statements have been distributed in advance. Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like, before we do the moment of silence, to be able to hear from the minister and have the response as well.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's statement certainly meets the qualifications of members' statements, there is no doubt about that. The Chair has no way of knowing what the Ministerial Statements are. Ministerial Statements are given to the minister by the name of the minister who is going to be doing a statement, but maybe in the future, to avoid something like this, that when the Ministerial Statements are put on the Order Paper, let the Speaker know the content and the Speaker is aware of the members' statements as well, and there might be able to be some collaboration if we see the two of them are about the same topic.

If the hon. minister is going to raise the same topic and if part of that is standing to observe this tragic day, then I certainly have no problem with that, and I am certain that the hon. member, hopefully, will not have either. I will wait to hear from her, but it is certainly reverence of an event, an unfortunate event that happened.

To that point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

I did speak to the Speaker yesterday about my statement and he did receive it this morning in due time as he was supposed to receive. I would be very pleased, Mr. Speaker, for us to hold the moment of silence until after the minister's statement, which I, too, did not receive until around 1:10 p.m.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

 

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House of Assembly today to honour the memory of fourteen young women who were killed during what we now refer to as the Montreal Massacre.

It will be twenty years ago on Sunday, December 6, that the lives of these women were taken at Montreal's Ecole Polytechnique. These women were working toward futures in engineering when a man shot and killed them because they were women.

Now, two decades later, this horrific event is a chilling reminder of the devastating effects of violence against women.

In 1991, in memory of these women, the federal government designated December 6 as a National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. On Sunday, flags at Confederation Building will be at half-mast from sunrise to sunset to mark this day.

Mr. Speaker, far too many women in our Province live with violence every day. Our two police forces reported over 4,300 incidents of violence against women in the two-year period between 2006 and 2008.

Equally alarming is the fact that, of the 218,000 women over the age of fifteen living in this Province, more than 100,000 of them will experience at least one incident of sexual or physical violence in their lifetime. Another shocking reality, Mr. Speaker, is that only 10 per cent will report these incidents to police.

These facts represent a huge societal issue that we all have a responsibility to address. Through our six-year, $12 million Violence Prevention Initiative, our government is proactively working with communities and volunteer organizations to identify long-term solutions to preventing violence against women.

Our violence prevention efforts are currently focussed on preventing male violence against women. Our Respect Women campaign includes a Web site of information and resource materials, as well as print and television advertisements. It is designed to draw attention to the important role and responsibility of men that they have in nurturing the young boys in their lives.

In this campaign, we are using positive messages to encourage men to teach young boys how to respect women. By doing so, we are addressing the very root of violence, which is inequality, Mr. Speaker. We hope that this campaign will help in nurturing today's young boys to grow up respecting women.

The purple ribbon on your desk symbolizes the memories of women we have lost to violence. Mr. Speaker, let this ribbon also symbolize the hope that comes from our collective efforts to end inequality and violence against women.

As a reminder to all of us of the events of December 6, 1989, I want to read the names of those fourteen women who died that day into the record of the House of Assembly: Genevieve Bergeron; Helene Colgan; Nathalie Croteau; Barbara Daigneault; Anne-Marie Edward; Maud Haviernick; Barbara Klucznik; Maryse Laganiere; Maryse Leclair; Anne-Marie Lemay; Sonia Pelletier; Michele Richard; Annie St-Arneault; Annie Turcotte.

I encourage all members and residents of the Province to learn more about what you can do to help bring an end to violence against women. To learn more about our social marketing campaign, please visit our Web site at respectwomen.ca

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like it if we all stood in a moment of silence.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All rise.

[Moment of silence]

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly thank the minister for a copy of her statement today and to say that I want to join with her and my colleague, the Leader of the NDP, and all members of this House, and indeed all those across our country who recognize December 6 as the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women in our society.

Mr. Speaker, the violence against fourteen women that occurred in our country in 1991 will always be a dark and devastating reminder that is felt in the hearts of women and men right across this country. I think any time that we see violence against women, just because of our gender, just because we are women, it is unacceptable and we all have a role in society to change that and to ensure that we eliminate it, Mr. Speaker.

It was just last year when I listened to an RNC report, and I remember at that time they were saying that 50 per cent of all violent crimes that were being reported in Province were crimes against women.

I also remember, Mr. Speaker, that the number of cases in recent years of violence against women that were being reported, has not declined a whole lot. In fact, last year there were still 800 cases in this Province of reported violence against women. As we have already heard here today, only 10 per cent of a lot of these cases get reported. In fact, a common concern, Mr. Speaker, that I have heard from women's shelters, in particular in this Province, is that although many women are fleeing violence in their home and seeking the refuge of shelters, many of them are not reporting the incidents. They are not reporting out of fear of custody and care for their children.

I think that is not a concern I have heard in just one region of the Province, I have heard it in many regions. I think it is one area that, as a government and as parliamentarians, that we need to look at to ensure that these women not only are able to seek refuge, but also have the ability to be able to report these incidents free from stress and burden in their own lives and know that they and their children will be protected.

Mr. Speaker, in order for women to continue to seek safe havens, we have to continue to provide them. Our Violence Prevention Initiative has done good work in educating, in promoting and encouraging people and groups in this organization to take an active role in violence against families and women. I think we also need to ensure that many of our women's shelters out there are adequately funded, have adequate programs and provide for the proper transition of women when they come out of these shelters; another common concern that we keep having raised.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just clue up my comments by saying today that we would certainly support any programs that are being put in place and implemented to support women and children in our society. We are more than prepared to do our part to ensure that the number of cases of violence against women in this Province continues to decline. I certainly hope that this will remain a priority for government in its agenda.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

I am more than pleased to stand with the minister and with the Leader of the Official Opposition in recognizing the twentieth anniversary of the Montreal Massacre and to join with all of the members in the House and everybody who is watching with us today.

I think that we need to remember that because of December 6, twenty years ago, our federal government brought in gun control. Unfortunately, some weeks ago in Ottawa, there was a vote on long gun control and to remove the registry of long gun control. This has been very disturbing for me and I know for many, many women in this Province.

I think I am correct in saying this; if not, I am to be corrected. My understanding is that women who have been murdered by guns in this Province, especially in the last twenty years, have been murdered by long guns. I say to all of us, and I say to us here in this House, that while this is a federal ruling and it has not passed totally through the whole process yet, it does put an extra onus on the government and on all of us with regard to the fact that long guns will no longer be registered if this goes through.

So I just put that out. I know this is something that would concern the minister and would concern all of us.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in this hon. House to recognize that today, December 3, is International Day of Persons with Disabilities. This is an annual observance created by the United Nations to promote understanding of disability issues, foster respect for the rights of persons with disabilities and highlight the benefits of having persons with disabilities engaged in all aspects of life in their communities.

Mr. Speaker, this occasion is about mobilizing action toward creating a fully inclusive society. As Minister Responsible for the Status of Persons with Disabilities, I am proud to say that 2009 was certainly a year of action for this Province.

On June 1, the Williams government officially opened the new Disability Policy Office, which was created to promote inclusion of persons with disabilities in all aspects of society, while helping government departments ensure their policies and programs are inclusive and barrier-free. The opening was met with tremendous approval from the community of people with disabilities as it represented a new era of partnership between government and the community.

This partnership has been strengthened by the establishment of our new Provincial Advisory Council for the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities, which was announced last week. This council is comprised of seventeen members and features cross-disability representation from all regions of the Province. This will help ensure government fully appreciates all perspectives within the community of persons with disabilities.

The newly appointed chair of this council, Ms Joanne MacDonald, is present in this hon. House today, and I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to her for accepting this role.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Ms MacDonald has spent decades advocating to improve accessibility for persons with disabilities, and has excelled as an athlete, advocate and role model. Her achievements have earned her a nomination to the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador and appointment as an Officer of the Order of Canada. We are very fortunate to have someone with her insights and her standing within the community to lead this endeavour.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by advising this hon. House that this morning I had the privilege of celebrating this very important day at the Independent Living Resource Centre. This inspiring event included the presentation of awards, including the Local Government Award for Independent Living.

I am so proud to announce that the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment was the recipient of this award which honours those who have challenged, lobbied and succeeded in implanting substantial change by breaking down barriers faced by persons with disabilities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: This is very important work, Mr. Speaker, and I encourage members of the community of disabilities to continue to partner with this government so that together, we can continue to build a more progressive, inclusive society.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement, and to say that we, in the Official Opposition, want to join all of those who are in observance of the International Day of Persons With Disabilities.

I also want to, on behalf of our Opposition members, congratulate Ms MacDonald on this very important appointment. I have seen this lady work in various areas, with Recreation Newfoundland and Labrador quite a few years ago, I have seen her come to Lions Clubs and make presentations on behalf of those with disabilities, and I have to say that her work in advocating for people with disabilities will truly be a spearhead with this new committee that has been set up. I am sure that she will meet with employers, and many people have concerns with regard to what things they should do within their employment areas, so that they too can take part with people with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, there are some staggering figures in our Province. Approximately 75,000 people in our Province have at least one disability. Whether it be mobility, vision, hearing, mental health, or intellectual disability. The Canadian Paraplegic Association stated recently that 50 per cent of people in our Province with disabilities are unemployed.

So, Mr. Speaker, there is much that has been done, however, there is much to be considered. Today as we speak, we know that there are fourteen individuals who are in the workforce with disabilities who are on strike today. So there is much to be done. We know that there are people who cannot access many buildings in our Province, whether it is their own homes because of ramps, whether it is facilities where they cannot get to the washrooms. So, Mr. Speaker, by working together, and I am sure with the guidance of Ms MacDonald, that by working together we all can become an inclusive society.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

I am very pleased to join with her and with everybody in this House in recognizing December 3, which is the International Day for Persons with Disabilities. It is so important that we do mark days like this. Sometimes it feels like there is a day for everything, but everything for which there is a day is something that is important.

I am very pleased with the announcement that was made by the minister of Ms Joanne MacDonald as the chair of the council. I know the work of many of the appointees, and I know that we have excellent candidates and a council that is going to do excellent work for the Province. I know that the minister is certainly going to be there to work with them because everybody in this Province, and especially persons with disabilities, want action. The time for talk is over. Good intentions are not enough. It is action that we want. That is what this council is about, and I really look forward to the actions that come.

Probably one of the ones that we need to see sooner rather than later comes from a revelation that happened, that came about this week in the Province. I, myself, was surprised to find out that there were no accessible washrooms in either of the general hospitals in St. John's, in the area where patients are admitted. I know there probably are some downstairs in other parts of the hospital – maybe in the ER, sections like that, but not where patients are admitted. This is not acceptable. I have heard explanations from the CEO of Eastern Health, but I have also heard the voice of the coalition of persons with disabilities. Something has to be done sooner rather than later to deal with this issue. I am sure it is one that the council is going to take up, and I encourage them to do so, and I really encourage the minister, along with the Minister of Health and Community Services, to take this issue - to put it on the desk and to really take action on it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, Quebec's Minister of Natural Resources rejected the Province's attempt to reopen the Upper Churchill deal. In response to questions in the House yesterday the minister stated that they were still waiting to hear from Hydro-Quebec. Well, yesterday the President of Hydro-Quebec also rejected the idea in the public.

I ask the minister: Now that both the Quebec Minister of Natural Resources and the President of Quebec Hydro have refused to reopen the Upper Churchill contract, will the Province now commence court action?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is almost as difficult to communicate with as is the Government of Quebec on Hydro-Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador are not proceeding with any action against Hydro-Quebec at this time. Mr. Speaker, CF(L)Co has written Hydro-Quebec asking them to reopen the Upper Churchill contract. They have given them until January 15 to respond. Mr. Martin, President of CF(L)Co, said he is waiting to hear in writing from Hydro-Quebec and when he gets the letter and the response and the answer, whatever it is, he will then decide - CF(L)Co will decide what their next steps will be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is not really talking to anyone else in the country but maybe she is talking to CF(L)Co. So maybe you could tell us, now that they have had their suggestion rejected by Quebec Hydro will they now take court action, minister?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I refer the Leader of the Opposition to yesterday's edition of The Telegram where the President, Ed Martin, the President of CF(L)Co said, "It's steady as she goes." He wrote a letter to Hydro-Quebec. He is waiting for a response in writing. Once that is received, CF(L)Co will decide what their next steps will be. That is pretty straightforward, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last night the Premier and his counterpart in Nova Scotia released to the media a letter written to New Brunswick Premier Shawn Graham asking for a commitment that new transmission lines would be built in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister today: Why are you not engaging in real discussions with New Brunswick, and why is it that this government continues to commence negotiations through the media?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I again reference the Leader of the Opposition to all the editions of The Telegram for the last month and to do a media scan where she should already know, but obviously does not, that there were formal talks with Minister Graham in Churchill Falls at the CAP meeting. There were certain assurances given by Premier Graham at that time that Premiers from Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia asked for in writing.

The discussions have been had, answers were given, and what the two Premiers had asked Premier Graham was to put in writing what he had said to them in Churchill Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is the way this government does business. Earlier in the week we saw them trying to commence a negotiation on the Upper Churchill with Hydro-Quebec through a media conference. Last night we heard them trying to commence another negotiation with New Brunswick through the media on two very important issues, two very important issues: one, building a transmission line through that province and access at a rate that would be installed at this particular time.

I ask you minister: On important issues like this, why is it that you, your Premier or someone else is not sitting down at the table with the Premier of New Brunswick, with the Government of New Brunswick as opposed, Mr. Speaker, to fighting the war in the media? Why is that not occurring?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members, are they going to allow the minister to answer the question?

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we all hoped when Premier Grimes retired that we were going to get a different approach with a new Leader of the Liberal Party, but it is the same old thing, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: It is the same old thing. In the media on Monday, Mr. Grimes was saying: Negotiate; sit down and talk. On Tuesday, he was saying: Sue.

Mr. Speaker, in like manner, the Leader of the Opposition is all over the place. We had discussions. Both Premiers had discussions with Premier Graham in Churchill Falls several weeks ago at the CAP meeting. Both Premiers referred to it publicly. Premier Graham has referred to it publicly.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition really has to get in the loop.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we are going to find out who is in the loop when this is all done. We will find out who is in the loop, because the minister has yet to have a meeting with anyone. She is the lead minister and she is yet to have a meeting with anyone on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, does the Province have any plans – maybe she can tell me this – to cover any of the costs that are associated with the construction of a new transmission line or the cost that is associated with an environmental assessment process to establish a transmission line through New Brunswick?

Tell us that, Minister; you thought it all out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is absolutely right; we have thought it all out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Something they should have done, Mr. Speaker, before they tried to give it away the last time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Now, Mr. Speaker, wherever there is going to be transmission, whether there is existing transmission or new transmission, anybody who is using that transmission, including Newfoundland and Labrador, will have to pay a tariff to use the transmission or help pay the cost of the transmission. We have said that day after day after day in the House of Assembly. They just are not listening, Mr. Speaker.

Of course we do not expect somebody to build transmission and let us use it for free, Mr. Speaker. We are more than prepared to pay our way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would say the only thing the minister has not thought out at this stage is how she is going to get us out of the hole that their government has dug us in on this Lower Churchill deal, Mr. Speaker. They have not an ally left in this country to negotiate this deal with; not one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I appeal to members for their co-operation. There are important questions being asked.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has been recognized.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The truth of the matter is that they have no one left to talk to, they have no one left to negotiate with, they have no market for the power, they have no access to transmission, they have no money to develop the project, they have no environmental assessment completed, they have no Aboriginal claims signed off, Mr. Speaker, and every day is smoke and mirrors -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question now.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister at this stage to table what the cost will be to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to build a transmission line through New Brunswick, Mr. Speaker, to transport power for the Lower Churchill. She says they are prepared to do it. She says they have thought it out. I would like to know what –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week we saw a shining example of the research capacity of the Opposition. They do not know what they are doing, Mr. Speaker. The sad thing about all of that is they did not know what they were doing over here when they were trying to negotiate a deal on the Lower Churchill with all of the expertise of the public service at their command, plus any external advice or support they needed. I will guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, they know even less about what they are talking over there now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Every time there are no answers the only thing you get is all fluff from the other side, Mr. Speaker. A great big bowl of fluff is what we got coming across there today.

Mr. Speaker, my next questions are for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Mr. Speaker, our office received a very disturbing report. I referenced it yesterday in my comments in the House of Assembly concerning the delivery of education and social issues facing Jens Haven Memorial School in Northern Labrador, in the Community of Nain.

This report, which was completed in 2006, was never released to the public. I ask the minister today why that document was kept hidden.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: From one minister to another, Mr. Speaker, she continues to come with lies, innuendos and half information -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There are some things that the Speaker will wait until the end of Question Period to deal with, there are other comments that are made here, language that is used that he won't, and I ask the hon. Minister of Education to withdraw those remarks and withdraw them now.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. KING: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the report that the hon. member is referencing, there is no secret report. The report was produced by an administrator of the school of the day, several years ago. It was used as part of an advocacy effort to try and lobby for more resources for the school, Mr. Speaker.

The Department of Education has responded in part to that report. We have allocated more teachers to that particular school, Mr. Speaker. We have engaged in discussions of the review of the curriculum in the school, Mr. Speaker, and we have engaged with the local community to look at what other things we can do to strengthen education delivery in that school.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the document was provided to the Department of Education.

I ask the minister: Why was it that your government and the department did not move to further investigate the issues that were provided for in that documentation, and why have there been no targeted initiatives designed to bring down the statistics that were outlined in that report?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, for the record, the hon. member opposite should know that report was not commissioned by government. That report was like many, many other documents, Mr. Speaker, which we receive on a daily basis from people who are advocating for a particular cause.

We received the report, Mr. Speaker, we have assessed the report, and like for every other community in this Province, we made significant investments in education to try and strengthen the program for all children throughout the Province, and that includes Nain.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This report was submitted to the Department of Education. Any report that shows up on a minister's desk that says: In a school in this Province, 72 per cent of the students have been directly affected by suicide of a close family member; two-thirds of these students require either moderate or intense support to be able to follow the provincial school curriculum; 0 per cent of Grades 4 to 7 students are performing at an advanced performance level; and the retention rate is only 46 per cent of those in the school actually graduate.

Now, Minister, whether you commissioned the report or the report showed up on your desk, it is an alarming uncover of statistics of students in one school in this Province –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask you today: What initiatives were targeted for this school to ensure that those rates were reduced over the last three years?

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, as I said a few moments ago, the report was not commissioned by us. That was a matter, a point for the record, Mr. Speaker, because the suggestion was made by the Leader opposite that we hid away a report that we commissioned, and we did not commission that report. I state that for the record for this House, that it was a document that was received, the same as hundreds of others that I receive on almost a weekly basis, people looking for extra resources. Now I will repeat, Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to listen, I will repeat the things we have done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KING: We have invested in human resources in that particular school. We have invested in resources to update the assessment of students and we have addressed issues around student absenteeism and we are continuing to work with the local school board and the local community on a daily basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, in February the FFAW met with the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to discuss the challenges in the fishery for the coming year and what solutions would be forthcoming. Well, 2009 was a challenging year with a serious depletion of markets as a result of global economic crises, and the FFAW, coming out of their symposium, has put your government on notice that there will not be a fishery this year based on the prices that were offered last year. It is just not economically feasible, so they say.

I ask the minister: What is your government's plan to deal with the warning from the union and the industry, and unlike this year, will your contingency plan be ready by early spring so that harvesters are not forced to fish late in the season and under dangerous circumstances as was the case in 2009?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately at this time of global recession, the fishery is being struck rather hard, there is no doubt about that.

One of the things that I said to the hon. member yesterday that our government has invested in and is committed to is $800,000, Mr. Speaker, to an MOU that we hope the harvesters, the fisheries union, the processors and government can enter into and then come up with a way forward, because we are faced with this on an annual basis. Mr. Speaker, if we are going to make progress that is simply where it has to be. Protests, ultimatums, are not going to cut it, Mr. Speaker. It has to be an agreed path forward, and we are committed to investing in that, Mr. Speaker, and we are certainly hoping that the other sides are committed to it as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, price for the product is paramount in the operation of this industry, as any industry. The processors and harvesters need a certain price to make this industry economically feasible. This past fishing season I constantly heard from fish harvesters in my area of the inequity in pricing compared to other Atlantic Provinces and how other provinces offered a price that was substantially higher, a price that would make their enterprise economically feasible.

I would ask the minister: Can he tell us why there is such a difference in pricing from one province to the other?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are faced with – I do not know if you would call it a dilemma or whatnot, Mr. Speaker, in this Province. On the one hand we have the harvesters who are asking for certain measures to be taken around the selling price of fish. On the other hand, we are faced with the challenge of having the product processed in this particular Province, Mr. Speaker.

I will ask the member opposite; if he has any solutions I would certainly sit down with him any time. Being new in his role, maybe he has some new, fresh ideas. I would be certainly willing to sit down and speak to him about that, Mr. Speaker. One thing about it, if we are going to make any way forward, we have to sit at the table. This means the processors, the union and government. Mr. Speaker, if we commit and other parties commit to that, we will have success.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

On Monday of this week I asked the Minister of Justice about the pretrial detention centre planned for Happy Valley-Goose Bay and asked when the tender might be forthcoming on that because it has been delayed for quite some time. The minister was not very specific. He talked about some preliminary work being done. The records will show that the planning monies for this were in the Budget of 2008. The $2 million for the construction of the facility was in 2009, yet we still have not seen the tender.

I am wondering if the minister can give us some more specifics as to why this is being delayed, and can he make a commitment that it will be announced in this year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify something that was said in the hon. gentleman's question on Monday. I think he prefaced his question by stating that the pre-detention centre was one of the seventy-seven recommendations in the Decades of Darkness report and that is not the case; it was not one of the recommendations of the Decades of Darkness report.

Having said that, to reaffirm my statement read on Monday, we are committed to improving the justice system in Labrador, including the pre-detention centre for women. We have made significant improvements, Mr. Speaker, in our judicial system and in our correctional institutions. We have spent $7 million in the last year on improvements to our correctional system; on planning and staffing and programming. We will continue to do that.

Just last week, Mr. Speaker, I visited Happy Valley-Goose Bay and talked to all the stakeholders in the justice system down there. I must say that I was impressed with the response that I got. Certainly, the circumstances that presented the need for this facility still very much exist. We are still working on it, Mr. Speaker. We have some planning; we had some money to spend on planning.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

We have spent some money on planning. We have a couple of models presented. We are investigating it further. We have still some more work to do on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I guess we will see this pre-detention centre take the same road in terms of progress as we have seen with the hospital in Labrador West, announced six times.

Well, Mr. Speaker, contained in that report, the seventy-seven recommendations, one of the other ones was that it showed that 90 per cent of the inmates in Her Majesty's Penitentiary suffer from personality and addictions disorders, and government responded with a commitment to fund an addictions counsellor for HMP and for the Clarenville Women's Correctional Centre.

I ask the Minister, to date we know that the department has not as much as even advertised for that position, let alone fill it, and this report was made and this recommendation was made and commitment was made a year ago. So I ask the minister: Why the delay again in getting that position filled?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the addictions counsellor for HMP is being hired and currently waiting classification from Treasury Board.

With respect to the Labrador correctional institution, correctional centre; we have in that particular facility increased our psychological services for inmates in that centre. We have hired a full-time fetal alcohol syndrome co-ordinator. We have increased the nurse practitioner's hours to twelve hours per week. We are, as well, hiring an Aboriginal liaison training co-ordinator.

Mr. Speaker, we are doing these things as they unfold. We are spending a lot of time on them, a lot of planning on them, and they are being done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I guess the minister must have been referring to the wrong page of notes. The position I talked about was for the HMP and for the Women's Correctional Centre in Clarenville. In any case, that is fine.

My final question to the minister is: Minister, there was an incident that happened at HMP when a gentleman by the name of Mr. Aylward, Austin Aylward passed away. He had been taken off his medications while he was at HMP. In May of last year, the former Minister of Justice announced that retired Justice Robert Wells would be conducting an independent investigation into Mr. Aylward's death, and that was announced in the local media. Yet, we have heard nothing of it since. We are all aware, of course, that Justice Wells became involved in the Cougar investigation after that, but I am wondering if you could –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose his question.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes.

Can the minister tell us what the status of that investigation is that Justice Robert Wells was supposed to undertake with respect to Mr. Aylward's death?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, Justice Wells completed his review into the circumstances surrounding the untimely and unfortunate death of the inmate. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to extend condolences to the family of that inmate for that tragedy.

The review was commenced on March 18 and the department has received the report. The family of the inmate has been provided a copy, stakeholders in the Department of Justice, the Crown prosecutors' office, Legal Aid, both police forces, Adult Corrections, the Law Society, the Bar Association, all have been given the recommendations from the report and have been asked to respond to these recommendations by February 26.

This report contains very personal information, Mr. Speaker, and consequently we will not be releasing the report in its entirety, but if Members of the House of Assembly would like to receive a copy of the recommendation we would only too happen to provide it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, government recently closed the controversial New Harbour dump in Trinity Bay, but the concerns of the people about the contaminated site are by no means closed. Allan Williams of New Harbour, in partnership with the environment organization known as Friends of the Earth, made an application to the federal government. By the way, his application was accepted.

I ask the minister: What is your department's plan for dealing with this investigation and the accusation that this site remains in violation of the federal Canadian PCB regulations and prosecutions may be imminent?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition member pointed out that government closed the site. I would just like to clarify that it was the Trinity Bay South Waste Management Committee who closed the site, and I commend them for doing that. That was, in fact, done on September 26 and now their waste is coming to Robin Hood Bay.

Mr. Speaker, as the member mentioned, this is a federal investigation and certainly our role in it will be to follow that investigation. In the meantime, we are very committed to the New Harbour site. To date, we have spent $750,000 and we will continue to do work there in terms of monitoring, site modifications and putting a liner on the site to close it out properly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, today is International Day of Persons With Disabilities, as we know. As we have learned today from the Canada Paraplegic Association more than 24.8 per cent of people living with disabilities in our Province are unemployed. Mr. Speaker, just this past year government set up a Disability Policy Office again, as we know, to deal with barriers to inclusion in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Does this Province have a concrete plan in place to deal with barriers to employment beyond the two already existing programs under Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and if so, Mr. Speaker, could the minister describe the plan?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite so rightly pointed out we do have a Disability Policy Office in place now under the very capable leadership of Mary Reid. That Disability Policy Office, in conjunction with the newly announced council that we recognized here today, is in the process now of investigating those exact same concerns and putting into place some new programs that will in fact address all of the concerns that you have raised.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister; I look forward to hearing more from her in the future.

Mr. Speaker, there has been much publicity over the past few days about the absence of accessible washrooms in the two St. John's general hospitals. Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable that today we still have to fight to have our public buildings made accessible. Making facilities accessible is basic infrastructure. Accessible washrooms are not benefits or perks.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services if the government is going to ensure that Eastern Health will make the necessary changes to help people living with disabilities who are admitted to these two hospitals?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I say to the Leader of the New Democratic Party this is a very serious issue and one that we will take very seriously. In conjunction with my colleague, the Minister Responsible for Persons with Disabilities and the new office of disabilities we will certainly look into it.

I have read the comments made by the individual on CBC and also the comments of Vickie Kaminski, the CEO of Eastern Health. This is an issue that we will address and I have to say it does cause me very grave concerns also. We are striving as a government to ensure equal access for all and it is something that we will consider seriously and look at.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The Coalition of Persons with Disabilities has stated that there is an affordable way to provide accessible washrooms in the short terms, and I think Ms Kaminski, publicly, has also made a similar statement. One private or semi-private room can be made accessible in each section of a hospital at a cost of about $25,000 each. This seems to be a small amount of money for government to invest to stop discrimination against people with disabilities. I think the minister probably will agree.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will government work with all of the health authorities to provide immediate short-term solutions for the lack of accessible washrooms in hospitals wherever they are needed in the Province, not just with Eastern Health?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can indicate to the member opposite that our commitment will be to the people of all parts of this Province, as we have indicated as a government throughout our mandate. I have read the comments made on Open Line by the executive director of the coalition. He indicated at that time an official request would be coming forward, and I certainly look forward to receiving the same. I am aware of the comments being made as to the cost of how this can be done. I will certainly, over the next short period of time, have discussions with Ms Kaminski, Mr. Lane and any other interested parties.

Again, I reiterate, Mr. Speaker, that our commitment to persons with disabilities has been indicated by the establishment of this office. We will do what we can to ensure equal treatment for all persons in our society.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Present Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: In compliance with the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity Administration Act, I hereby table copies of minutes of the Management Commission for June 24, October 7, October 20, and November 4.

Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Respecting Condominiums. (Bill 48)

I further give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Public Accountants. (Bill 49)

I further give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act. (Bill 50)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Acting Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City Of St. John's Act. (Bill 51)

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act And The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 52)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Government Services, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Engineers And Geoscientists Act, 2008, Bill 44, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Engineers And Geoscientists Act, 2008, Bill 44, and that Bill 44 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 44 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Engineers And Geoscientists Act, 2008", carried. (Bill 44)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Engineers And Geoscientists Act, 2008. (Bill 44)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 44 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 44 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 6, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act No. 2, Bill 38.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 38, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act No. 2, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act No. 2". (Bill 38)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to take a few moments this evening to speak to the amendments to the Memorial University Pensions Act.

Mr. Speaker, Memorial University was founded in 1925 as a living memorial to our war dead. Over the eighty-plus years since that time, we have grown to be the largest university in Atlantic Canada, offering a wide degree of programs, more than 100 to be exact, to a student population of greater than 17,000.

As you are all aware here today, Mr. Speaker, the university employs many thousands of individuals, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and we have been able to attract many people to the Province through employment at the university. Professors and other professionals there have become important and permanent members of the university and of our community.

Mr. Speaker, the university is governed by the Memorial University Act and its operations are guided by other pieces of complementary legislation, including the Memorial University Pensions Act which governs the university's pension plan. This plan provides a defined benefit pension, similar to that provided to the provincial public service. The university pension plan provides retirement benefits to full-time employees and qualifying contractual employees of Memorial University.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, employees of certain separately incorporated entities of Memorial are also eligible to participate. MUN's Board of Regents, Mr. Speaker, recently approved amendments to the Memorial University Pensions Act to address a number of significantly outstanding issues. As members of this House may recall, in the spring of 2009 session of the House we amended this act to ensure the plan's compliance with the age requirements of both the Human Rights Code and the Income Tax Act of Canada.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we will address the remainder of the proposed amendments identified by MUN's Pension Advisory Committee which are required to ensure compliance with the federal Income Tax Act and changes required by Canada Revenue Agency. I will go through these amendments, Mr. Speaker, one by one right now to ensure members of the House are fully aware of them.

The first amendment would be a change to the definitions. First, a number of definition changes in the act, Mr. Speaker, will occur. We will clarify the existing calculation of the best five-year average salary. We will comply with the provisions of the federal Income Tax Act and we will reflect earning limits defined under the Canada Pension Plan.

The second amendment, Mr. Speaker, will deal with grandfathering existing, non-MUN employees. Second, there are currently three non-MUN employers, Mr. Speaker, who have staff participating in MUN's Pension Plan. These include: The Memorial University of Newfoundland Students' Union, the Medical Practice Associates, as well as the Geological Association of Canada, the Newfoundland section. At one time, staff of these employers were permitted entry into the plan, however, this practice was discontinued in 2005 when restrictions on participation from MUN's separately incorporated entities was introduced into the act. Currently, twenty non-MUN employees are still participating in the plan. To ensure the act recognizes that these employees as eligible participants in the plan, it is proposed to introduce language into the act that will grandfather these existing twenty employees, Mr. Speaker - to grandfather the existing twenty employees, thus protecting their pension.

The third amendment will be the removal of a disability pension provision, Mr. Speaker. The disability pension provision will be removed from the act. Employees are already protected through the mandatory participation in the long-term disability insurance at MUN. The disability pension provision provides for the payment of a disability pension should a member become disabled. However, given the higher benefits available under the mandatory disability insurance program, it is being proposed to eliminate the provision.

The fourth amendment, Mr. Speaker, is the integration of Canada Pension Plan. This will reflect the integration of the Canada Pension Plan into the Memorial University Pensions Act, similar to the current one for the public service.

Fifth, we will improve the bridge benefit under the survivor pension. Currently, the pension of a retiree who dies before the age of 65 is immediately integrated with the Canada Pension Plan, thereby reducing MUN's pension benefits. It is proposed to change this to the practice employed under the Public Service Pension Plan for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This means that the Canada Pension Plan integration will be applied at the date at which the deceased retiree would have reached the age of 65. Thus, the survivor's benefit will not be reduced until the date at which the deceased retiree would have reached the age of 65.

The sixth amendment to this, Mr. Speaker, is to improve re-employment policies for retirees. Currently, retirees under the plan can only be rehired under contract and must continue to receive their pension. During this re-employment MUN has a set limit, such that earnings received through a pension and a contract must not exceed a person's pre-retirement earnings. When both are combined they cannot exceed the pre-retirement earnings. It is proposed that the act will be amended so that a pensioner who is rehired can use this period of re-employment as pensionable time, thereby increasing their future pension benefits. A similar provision, Mr. Speaker, already exists under the Public Service Pensions Act, 1991.

The seventh amendment, Mr. Speaker, includes the Income Tax Act limits regarding periods of unpaid leave and reduced pay in the act. Currently, it allows an employee to purchase a period of leave of absence of up to a maximum of two years. It is proposed in the current amendments to the legislation that we will amend this to provide for the maximum limits allowable under the Income Tax Act, which allows five years of unpaid leave, plus an additional three years in respect of parental leave. This is being done in practice, and right now we are seeking to provide authority to the amended legislation.

Eighth, Mr. Speaker, sections of the act regarding the survivor and dependant children will be amended to comply with the requirements of the Province's Pension Benefits Act, 1997. Similar provisions have been made in the Public Service Pension Plan already.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, certain changes are required to comply with the Income Tax Act. A part of its regulatory responsibilities for Registered Pension Plans, for the Registered Plans Directorate of the Canada Revenue Agency, reviews plan texts and advises plan funders where changes are required to ensure we have full compliance under the act. In this particular instance, Mr. Speaker, Canada Revenue Agency has outlined to us a number of changes that are required under the Memorial University Pensions Act, and those are incorporated here today.

Mr. Speaker, these collective changes that we are bringing forward today will ensure full compliance for the Memorial University Pensions Act with federal legislation and it will strengthen the legislation for the benefit of employees. A stronger pension plan, Mr. Speaker, will mean a stronger university with a unified workforce and a competitive advantage in attracting new, future, qualified personnel to continue the strong tradition we have of quality programs being offered at Memorial University.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words with respect to this particular piece of legislation. It is of course complicated for one who is not used to dealing with pension plans. As we all know, we have a multitude of pension plans in our Province. We have the MHAs Pensions Plan, the Public Service Pension Plans. We have the NLTA plans. We have now the Memorial University plans, which we have had for some time, which is being amended. All of these, of course, do not only just deal with what kind of pensions come out on the backend of somebody's work life. They deal of course with tax consequences as well. So they not only decide what happens between the individual and his employer when he or she retires, but there are also impacts from Revenue Canada. Over time, usually because a lot of these different pacts are negotiated at separate times under different circumstances, you all do not have the same plan. Of course, you become aware of circumstances that ours is not like the other one, or this one has some tinkering that we do not have, and you try to bring it in-line so that you make it the best that it can be based upon the funding of course that you have in it. That is what we see here again, is we see an opportunity to try to clean it up, the pension piece, when it comes with respect to the Memorial faculty and their pension plan.

I am wondering, the minister - usually second reading, of course, is an opportunity just to say in general terms what the piece of legislation is all about, and the minister has just alluded to that. I am wondering as well if the minister could tell us, and maybe I missed this, but I did not hear him say who exactly were consulted in regard to this particular piece of legislation, because sometimes we find legislation that comes to the floor of the House here because it is driven from within government or within the bureaucracy of the pensions division and so on. At other times this happens because it is generated and driven by the stakeholders themselves, the people who receive the pensions or in this case, like Memorial University.

So I am wondering if the minister, maybe when we get to the Committee stage or even at the end of second reading here, could give us some background as to who brought this about, who is initiating this particular piece of legislation and the changes, the extent of the consultations that went on between the parties here and so on, because I think that is important to know. Not everybody, for example, who even currently is receiving a Memorial pension knows that what we are doing here today will impact them. Now they may, depending on, of course, if their association or whatever has informed them, but I would like to know exactly what was done to make sure that they were in fact aware of it, they were made party to this. Because you do not want to find out we passed this thing and two days later we have a bunch of people screaming and saying, we did not know anything about this, and this is impacting us negatively and so on. So it would be nice to know, and just for the record, I am sure there has been consultation, but just for the record, to appease anyone out there who might be concerned about whether people were consulted, just to let them know that they were indeed consulted on this.

The minister's reference of course, to a number of things, the income tax applications here, and he referred, very interestingly I thought, to the issue of what we used to always – and we always still do – call double-dipping. He made reference to the fact that someone right now, for example, who is receiving a pension, if you want to bring them back to work they have to come back on a contract, which, of course, they get their pension and they get their contract monies for doing that contract. So I have always called that double-dipping. We see it in a lot of instances, not only in the case of Memorial. There are lots of instances, for example, where teachers who have retired in our system, they have retired but because they have a particular skill, particularly, sometimes, like a French teacher or a mathematics or a science teacher, and if the department cannot fill the need somewhere in a community, they go out and hire back a teacher who is retired who has those skills. That person again gets paid in addition to what he or she has received on their pension.

I have lots of instances in my district. For example, one very good friend of mine, who was a retired teacher in Burgeo, often goes down the coast. It could be Franηois, it might be Grey River. He goes down on a contractual basis, as does his wife, who goes to Ramea. I think she was actually the Principal of the Ramea school last year, because of the same thing, there was a shortage of a person with those abilities.

We also have it in the case of CONA instructors, which is a different facet as opposed to the NLTA type pensions and requirements, but it happens in CONA. For example, a lot of the people who are currently in Qatar – and we are all aware, of course, of the contract that was negotiated years ago. I believe it was a ten-year contract initially between this Province and the Qataris whereby we sent over instructors and CONA established a campus over there and so on. A lot of the instructors who are over there today are retired CONA instructors. They do have, for example, employees of CONA who are here in this Province and they have gone over there to continue in that employment vein, but we also have people over there who were instructors in CONA, retired, but they have now taken jobs in Qatar, which are in addition, again, to their pensions. I have friends who are also involved in doing that. I hope to see them soon, of course, when they return at Christmastime.

I ask the minister: In this particular case here - and you said, I do believe, that rather than having this, what I call double-dipping scenario in the future, you said you are going to bring them back. You will pay them, of course, for the services that they render, but if I heard you correctly you are saying that rather than be double-dipping, as it were, they will get paid but the time that they work extra will go onto their pensionable time, so therefore when they finish that contract, we will call it, or that service period, they will end up, in fact, with a more or a better pensionable time frame. I just want the minister to clarify that I got that right, and I believe that is what he did say.

I am wondering: Do we have, or do we intend to have this scenario carried over to the NLTA and the CONA situations in future, or are we going to continue with the double-dipping scenarios in their cases? Do you see what I am saying? If we have it in MUN, and this is going to be new to Memorial, why wouldn't we apply the same thing? If it is creative and if it is beneficial to the worker, and if it is cost-effective and beneficial to the Province, why wouldn't we also apply that and be bringing back amendments to the NLTA provisions and to the CONA provisions and so on, and the pensions that govern them? Now maybe the changes have been made recently, but to my knowledge that is not what exists for these people, for example, who are retired and are currently over working in places like Qatar and so on. I understand they get a pension. I understand they have a contract and it is two cheques, and it has nothing to do with extending the time on their pensionable time. Some explanation of that as to: Is there any thought to do that in the future? It would be beneficial as well.

Mr. Speaker, of course when we are talking about Memorial University, there are a lot of pieces to it than just the pensions, of course. Memorial University is not only the flagship of our Province when it comes to the educational opportunities and the standards that we operate at, the people at Memorial University, not only the students who are top-grade, of course, but the instructors who are top-grade. Hopefully, our facilities are top-grade. This government has invested a massive amount of money into making Memorial University all that it could and ought to be. There is no doubt about it, and successive governments have tried to do that. Education has always been paramount. No matter who the administrators and governors of this Province have been, you always try to make the best educational facilities that you can for the students of this Province.

Of course, we hit a few rough spots, we had a rough spot last year when the former Minister of Education tried to interfere in the selection process for the president. We had that happen last year. That is unfortunate and it was unfortunate. In fact, we now have a new president. I have not met the gentleman, but from all accounts and everything I have heard, he is top rate.

The issue still remains, the issue of the selection of the president, no mater who does it, the issue is: Should there be any involvement from the government? The current government had its position on that. That is fine, that is fair ball. The government had a position. It so happened that a lot of people disagreed with that position. I give the government full credit for how they withdrew themselves from that process. It happened, it should not have happened.

The Premier came out, when he was asked later on, months later when he was doing a Cabinet shuffle and he was asked down in Government House - I believe the new minister who is there now was appointed probably. Someone in the media asked the new minister: Well, what do you think of the Memorial University piece? I believe the minister did not respond, but the Premier responded and said: We are hands-off. That is good to see - I do believe that is what happened.

In fact, there was a conference or a briefing meeting which announced the appointment of the new president. I would not pronounce his last name for fear of not doing it properly. The gentleman is from Alberta. It sounds –

AN HON. MEMBER: Kachanoski.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Kachanoski. I apologize for butchering the pronunciation of that word. There was, in fact, an announcement when they announced him. They told the involvement, they said there – there were notes put out as to what involvement the current Minister of Education might have had in the selection.

We all remember that after that debacle happened, the government appointed Mr. Robert Simmonds, who is a noted lawyer here in St. John's, to be the Chair of the Board of Regents. The selection process was begun anew, and I must say it did not take Mr. Simmonds too long and the Board of Regents to come up with a selection. It is good to see that it happened and it does appear to have been arm's-length.

Again, people make mistakes sometimes. Even this government makes mistakes from time to time. I think it has been acknowledged by them, and certainly acknowledged by the Premier, that we made a booboo here. It is no good to have a top rate educational system and talk about autonomy and how good it is and where it is going to go in the future in terms of research capabilities and all of that stuff. Then you start putting your fingers in and interfering with how it is run and interfering with who runs the place. You have academic freedoms and everything to think about in this day and age, you always had them, for a long time.

There was a case where the government transgressed. They crossed the line, I do believe. Anyway they got their fingers suitably rapped, and they withdrew. So it is nice to see that piece got moved and put on.

Of course, there is still some confusion, I would think, in the public mind as to where we are going to go when it comes to Memorial, vis-ΰ-vis the Sir Wilfred Grenfell piece. About three or four years ago, the current Minister of Finance, the Member for Humber East – I mean he has been out chanting for years and years and years now about the independence of Sir Wilfred Grenfell College as a stand-alone university in the Province. This government is committed to it; committed to make Sir Wilfred Grenfell stand-alone.

Now, it has been debated extensively in the public, not only here, but even people from outside of Newfoundland and Labrador have commented that it seems to be a foolish idea. I have heard arguments pro and con as to whether we should or we should not. This government, in its wisdom, decided that it was going to happen. I never ever did hear many good reasons why it was going to happen yet. I heard it was going to happen. We had money put in the budget – not even this budget for 2009 and 2010. We had money put in the budget years ago, three, four years ago, to see that this happened.

Even more importantly, we had commitments from this government months and years ago that we would see the legislation come before this House to establish the autonomy of Sir Wilfred Grenfell. Well, we have not seen it. We have not seen it. Now, it is another one of those cases where maybe you had yourself out there before you realized that whoa, we have not thought all of this through. We have not really thought this through, what is involved in it, what is the cost of doing this, what are the pros and cons of this, have we consulted with everybody that we want to.

Anyway, it is out there now, and they say it is going to happen. We are hoping that some time in the twenty-first century we will see the legislation that is going to get it done. Other than the lip service that the government seems to be paying to it, we have not seen any legislation on this at all. So, it would be nice to see where it sits now. It is sort of a wish that the Member for Humber East wanted, and he got his wish, and now we cannot seem to see the government carrying through on it.

It would be interesting, too, to see how the new president – because I noticed he very astutely, and I believe, properly, when he was asked after his appointment the other day, what he thought about the old former debacle as to the selection process for the president, he said: I have no opinion.

Now that was a pretty smart move, I believe, on his part. Why get embroiled in something that you do not need to, you had no part of? Let's move on. He is thinking very positively I believe. He said he wants to have a very positive and open relationship with the government. He also made it very clear that he wants the autonomy of the University to be respected. There is a fine balancing act, he said. There is a fine balancing act between it.

So I am looking forward to seeing where the new president, as well, and the Board of Regents and the Senate, where they all go now with respect to the issue of the autonomy for Grenfell. We are several years out, and hopefully, as I say, we will see the government - maybe there will be more money in the Budget next year to sustain the idea to do further study, but hopefully we are going to do something a bit more substantive than that.

Before we know it, the Member for Humber East will probably be retired and never see it achieved here. I was looking forward to the day when he might get to vote on the piece of legislation or explain it.

Anyway, those are a couple of issues. It is good to see that the minister is bringing forward this bill today to clean up some of the pieces that are involving the pensions. As I say, there are lots of issues out there that involve Memorial University that have, over the last few years, kept it in the forefront; kept it, sometimes, in the media, and it did not want to be there. I refer, of course, to the president's piece. It just keeps lingering around, for example, the Grenfell piece.

There are a lot of people want to know. Are we or are we not - for example, the people on the West Coast. I represent a district on the West Coast and usually what happens is the kids from out in my area would go to Corner Brook for the first couple of years and then they find themselves having to go to St. John's to finish off their degrees. Of course, there are a lot of people out in my district who would love to see Grenfell have full autonomy. Your children are closer to home. It costs less to travel.

I would submit it costs even less to live in the City of Corner Brook than it does to live in St. John's. I have known and had the benefit of seeing people have to do both. I have had my own children who had to come here and friends of mine who had to go to Corner Brook. It is quite substantially more expensive to come to St. John's if you live in a place like Port aux Basques or the Codroy Valley than it is to go to Corner Brook to live. Say nothing of the fact that you can easily get home on weekends and so on, which you cannot easily do if you live here, 563 miles away.

There are a lot of people out there anxiously awaiting this. So do not take my comments to suggest that I am anti-Grenfell. I would just like to see all the arguments laid out there. I listened to the late principal when he made his announcements and why he thought it should happen, but I have not seen it out there so that we can debate it and say, okay, what are the pros, what are the cons, and who you consulted to get the view of some people.

For example, the gentleman who is now the Lieutenant-Governor of this Province, he was at that time the Chancellor of Memorial University. He made his views quite clear, what he thought of it. He ruffled some feathers when he did that, but he was never the gentleman known to be afraid of ruffling feathers. If he had something to say, whether it was to Sheila Copps or to the Premier of the Province, he always said it. You have to appreciate him for that. He was very candid. He spoke like he felt. If he felt it, he usually had it thought through, and he did not say it just frivolously. You cannot condemn somebody just simply because they say something. You have to look at it, particularly where it is coming from, and say: did that individual put any thought into that? You might disagree with them, but you cannot disagree with their right to have an opinion that is different than your own. Obviously, he is not in a position now where he would speak out. He is in a position now where he is neutral. He does not comment on these issues anymore in the public domain, but he made his positions known before he went out of view and he made them quite clear. You have to respect the comments of some of these people.

So anyway, we are not going to be opposed to the piece of legislation that is here right now. It is nice to see that the minister, as I say, is obviously listening to someone to get this done. We would just like to know more detail as to who it was that brought this forward and so on. My understanding is, and maybe the minister can clarify this, my understanding is that this particular change is not going to be positive for everyone. Maybe the minister could give us some explanation as to how many people are going to be negatively impacted by it as opposed to be positively impacted by it.

I notice the minister has a lot on his plate and he might not have heard what I suggested, but I think it is very important that – it is our understanding from the reading of this legislation that not everybody who receives this pension from Memorial is necessarily going to be positively impacted by these changes. My understanding is that there may be some, albeit minor, negative impacts, but there may be some negative impacts. I am wondering if the minister can give us some further clarification on that, because our review of it seems to be that not everybody is going to be 100 per cent positively impacted by this. Yes it is the right to do, yes it needs to be done, particularly the integration piece with Revenue Canada, but that is not necessarily going to impact everybody positively because some people, not all people, under the pension plan have the same circumstances. So I am wondering if the minister could clarify that for us as well.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, that is all the comments I had to make on second reading on this piece of legislation.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Before the Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Chair, while he did not interrupt the hon. member as he was speaking, I would like to remind members who are speaking from this time forward with this particular pension bill, it has nothing to do with the new President of Memorial University and has nothing to do with the viability of the Sir Wilfred Grenfell campus. It is to do with a change in pensions and to make in compliance with the Canada Pension Plan and the Income Tax Pensions Act. So I ask members if they would keep their comments pertinent to the piece of legislation.

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

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

I am glad to rise and speak to Bill 38 which deals with Memorial University pensions. It is an important piece of legislation, though it is housekeeping. It is housekeeping that is essential and that needs to be done.

The issues that are raised here are pretty basic issues to pensions and I think it is good that at this point in time the government, along with the university, have seen fit to make changes to bring the pension plan up to where it should be in terms of compliance, especially with the Income Tax Act of Canada. This is extremely important that there is unity between pension plans that we have provincially and with federal regulations.

I have done some homework and I have learned that there was consultation, as I hoped there might have been, between the department and the university. It is my understanding that the MUN University Pensions Committee and its amendment subcommittee were involved in the consultations. It is also my understanding that the major groups at the university who are affected by this pension plan are in agreement with the amendments that are being suggested.

I want to applaud the government and the department and applaud the minister on the approach that they have taken. That is an approach of real consultation where the changes that are made are changes that are acceptable to those who are going to be affected. I think that is extremely important and I am really glad that this has happened.

With regard to our pensions – and I think it is important to look at what is happening here at MUN with the pensions there in the light of all pensioners. I encourage the government to use the same sense of consultation that they had in making the amendments to the Memorial University Pensions Act, to use that same consultation in relationship to what is happening with regard to the public pensioners in this Province.

As we know, there is a pensioner's coalition that was formed in May, 2008, to draw government's attention to the plight of about 22,000 retirees whose pensions have largely been frozen for almost two decades. Well, it is two decades actually, because it was in 1989 that the then government decided that there would be no more indexation of the public sector pensions. One of the things that that coalition wants is what Memorial University got. They want consultation. They want government sitting with them. They want government looking at how this impasse is going to be changed.

I really would encourage government to look at how the Department of Education worked with Memorial, and the groups at Memorial, to come up with the amendments to their pensions act because the government has a responsibility to all of the pensioners in the public service sector. The coalition that has been formed, of course, covers NAPE, NAPE retirees, CUPE retirees, it covers teachers, it covers nurses – well, not nurses - it covers teachers for sure, the retirees from the teachers' association. It covers a broad spectrum of retirees and they have been asking for a long time - not just to sit and talk, and people say yes, we are listening, but to really work together to make the change that has to be made for them.

Some of the changes to the Memorial University pension are definitely going to benefit members who are receiving pensions now, and that is extremely important, but we have to be sure that all our public service sector is being treated fairly when it comes to pensions. We do know that some of the people who are on public pension are - for example, NAPE estimates that its pensioners receive $13,000 a year annually on average. Well, $13,000 average means there are quite a few below $13,000 and there will be others above. I would reckon to bet that those who are below $13,000, along with what they get from OAS, from the Old Age Security, is not bringing them up to the poverty line. I know that it isn't and we know that we have public pensioners who are living in poverty, who are going to food banks. This is unacceptable. We have to be just as concerned about our public pensioners, whether they are at Memorial University or whether they are people who are cleaning the buildings that we work in, no matter the work they did, their work was valuable and necessary and they should have the benefit of that work right through to the day that they die. That benefit should mean that just as they worked hard throughout their life and worked for their money and paid into their pension plan, they should now be protected and they should know that the pension that they are going to get is going to give them a life that is one of dignity, one where they do not have to beg after spending their lifetime working for the pension that they have.

So I encourage the government to look at these pensioners, to look at the pensioners' coalition, to sit with them, to have real conversation, to work with the unions to see how this impasse can be corrected, how things can be turned around for everybody, how a system can be put in place so that indexation is brought back in.

I know the complications. You have to find out who is going to be paying into that. If there is going to be indexation, how is that going to be paid for. Those things can be ironed out because I do believe, and I have always believed that where there is a will there is a way. So, if there is a political will to make this happen, it can happen. My concern is, perhaps up to now, it does not look like there has been a political will. We are at a point in time in our Province where we have the ability to finally deal with this issue. I know I did not agree with what happened in 1989, even though we may have been in difficult financial times twenty years ago, but there is never a reason that can justify taking money away from workers, because they have worked for that money. Getting rid of indexation, basically, was doing that. With every year that they were getting their pension and the pension was not worth as much as it had been the year before, they were losing money and having money taken away from them.

I thank the minister for bringing this document to the table. As I said, I am really glad that these changes are being made to the Pensions Act. I am glad that the government worked in partnership, and used real consultation in working in partnership with the bodies at the University who should have been consulted. I also hope that it is a sign that the government will become more concerned about the other public service sectors and the other pensioners who need to have changes made to, not so much the plans that they are part of, but with regard to the public service sector pensions, the system of their receiving a pension that reflects where things are in today's economy. So I am very happy to have had this opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

There is one other thing that I would like to mention. There is a bit of a move underfoot that disturbs me a bit, and it has to do with unlocking pensions. Obviously, it has not happened with this pension, and I would not expect that it would, but it is something that we need to be concerned about. The purpose for pensions – and I think this is the role of government, and that is why this bill is so important, bringing in the amendments - is to give people security after they stop working, when they are retired, and they pay into the pension, the employer pays into the pension. The role of government is to protect those pensions and to protect the funds and to protect how the pensions operate.

Sometimes there are people who, at a moment in their life, might be under pressure and might think, well, if they could get their hands on that money, which is their money, as they see it, because they have paid into it, but so has the employer. Sometimes they are so pressured that they think, if I could get that money now, it would benefit me now and I will make it up for my future, and it will be okay. A lot of research shows that allowing pensions to become unlocked and for people to take their money out of pensions is really a very bad way to go, that it actually can lead to a much worse situation for those people when they retire.

I think government's role to protect, by legislation, those funds, to hold those funds in trust for people's retirement, is a very serious responsibility of government. So just as making sure that the way in which the pension unrolls is important, just as it is important to make sure that all of the pieces that were amended today, for example, things that – it is housekeeping, it sounds like they are not important. All of these housekeeping amendments also protect the pensions, and it is just as important that government see its responsibility for protecting the funds and to not allowing legislation that would unlock pensions.

It may sound to some people, they way I have put it, that it may sound like: Oh, you are treating workers or people who have pension plans like children, government is keeping the money or will not allow legislation for the unlocking, but in actual fact, the full welfare of the society is government's responsibility, and I think maintaining locked-in pensions is part of that responsibility.

I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to have raised some of these issues, and I thank the minister for the presentation of the bill.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Member for The Isles of Notre Dame.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to make a few comments about Bill 38 and recognizing some changes to the legislation that will ensure that we are compliant with the Canada Revenue Agency and the Income Tax Act as it relates to Memorial University Pensions Act.

It was interesting listening to my colleagues across the House. As a former teacher, I was certainly pleased to hear that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi had her homework done today, and disappointed that the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile did not get his homework done, but that stuff happens, we are used to dealing with that.

Mr. Speaker, as well, I certainly respect the Speaker's reference to the fact that MUN presidency and Sir Wilfred Grenfell autonomy does not necessarily relate to the pensions act in which we are dealing with today, but I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate Dr. Kachanoski and the Board of Regents, the search committee, and Mr. Simmonds in their selection. I certainly welcome Dr. Kachanoski an opportunity to provide his leadership and his strong background to join with the leadership at Memorial University, the strong faculty presence there and the great students that we have at Memorial, and indeed, the presence and strong position that Memorial University has, not only in our Province, indeed, the country.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker earlier ruled on the relevance within the bill, and I would ask the member to keep his comments relevant to the particular bill we are debating.

MR. DALLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just took that opportunity to congratulate Dr. Kachanoski.

In light of that, this particular bill does reference Memorial University. It is one aspect of Memorial University and there are so many things there referenced today about issues that continue to linger, and I certainly would charge that the Opposition are certainly responsible that some of these issues continue to linger. There are a lot of great things at Memorial University that are occurring each and every day, and certainly it speaks well to where our government has supported Memorial University and where it is going.

In terms of the university itself, Mr. Speaker, the people at the university, the employees, they have spent many, many years dedicated to improving the post-secondary system that offers so many students so much benefit in this Province. It is important that as a government we continue to support them.

Today, in terms of the pension act, Mr. Speaker, this is just another highlight of where we are going to support Memorial University. Our government is committed to supporting post-secondary education in this Province. We have seen it demonstrated with substantial increases in funding. In terms of supporting the capacity, ensuring that we have access and affordable education for students; ensuring that the public post-secondary institutions that we support are certainly in terms of operational and also in terms of capital investment.

Mr. Speaker, we are making great strides to support the employees of the university, both in St. John's and in Corner Brook, by enhancing the system to support the employees and students through various Student Aid initiatives; advances in the delivery of distance education courses. We are seeing investments in programming that will better prepare students for the workforce. We are seeing growth at Memorial University; we are seeing an increase in employment options and opportunities, all of which of course supports the current existing staff at Memorial University.

The government has also provided funding to Memorial University to expand capacity and develop programs in a number of areas. We are seeing funding has resulted in improved skilled trades, we are seeing an increased demand in our society for skilled trades and it is important that we support the university in programming areas that will ensure that they continue to grow –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DALLEY: - and continue to support the need in our society.

MR. SPEAKER: I have to remind the hon. member again that we must try and keep our comments relevant to the particular piece of legislation we are debating. Bill 38 pertains to the pensions within Memorial University.

MR. DALLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, getting through –

AN HON. MEMBER: He never done his homework -

MR. DALLEY: Oh, the homework is done. It is a very broad interpretation, Mr. Speaker, if I might say, as we relate and go down through Bill 38 and we look at the long-term employees and look at where Memorial University has grown and the number of employees that have retired from the university. We have a long legacy and a legacy that we all have attached to Memorial University and great respect for the people who work there. It is through this process, and through the whole process of recognizing what their needs are, Mr. Speaker, the reason for Bill 38, in consultation with the advisory committee and the Board of Regents that we see the changes necessary for today.

Again, I just think it speaks to where we are as a government in supporting and staying on top of, and certainly working with Memorial University to ensure that we continue to be able to get the necessary changes that are needed, to ensure on a very positive path. It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that we are seeing the changes today.

At that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to close debate on this important piece of legislation. I will catch my breath from Question Period, I am sorry.

I want to thank previous speakers who raised some very important issues, specifically to the Opposition. A number of questions were raised, one respecting: Who was consulted on the legislative requirements? I think, specifically, was where the changes would have been initiated. The answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is the changes would have been initiated through MUN's Board of Regents based on some legislative requirements that we make the changes. It also engaged a pension advisory committee. So, it was the Board of Regents in consultation with a pension advisory committee that actually engaged here.

The second question, Mr. Speaker, focused on, I think, the concept of double-dipping and whether or not the changes being brought forward here today for consideration by the House apply to other pension plans. I am advised, Mr. Speaker, that individuals who participate in other public service pension plans within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador do also have the same opportunity and the same right to avail, for example, of an opportunity to go back to work, to park their pension and to accrue further pensionable service, and then when they leave the workforce again, to draw the pension down.

Mr. Speaker, this is certainly an important piece of legislation and I am very pleased to bring this forward. It is part, I guess, of a whole suite of important decisions we have made in this Province and important initiatives we have taken. I am certainly very pleased to hear the member opposite talk about the MUN presidency and we are very pleased, as a government, to have had the opportunity over the last period of time to see a new president introduced at Memorial, and very pleased with the direction that we are going to see for the future at Memorial, Mr. Speaker.

As this government and the Premier have said on many, many occasions, we recognize the value of education and we recognize the value of Memorial University of Newfoundland to our Province, to the past, to the present, and to the future of the Province. So I am certainly very pleased that we have turned the corner there and we have an individual who is highly respected and comes well recommended and certainly looking forward to him taking his place.

Also, Mr. Speaker, reference was made to Grenfell, and government's commitment to Grenfell. I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that we have continuously repeated, I have repeated and the previous minister has repeated our commitment to work with Grenfell, to strengthen Grenfell as a strong university and grow the programs there and grow the student enrolment. It is a commitment that we are continuing to follow. Discussions have been ongoing over the last months and days and weeks and hours with officials at Grenfell on the kind of investments we need and the kind of decisions we need to take and the kinds of directions we need to take. We recognize, Mr. Speaker, the kinds of things that need to be done to strengthen Grenfell, to market Grenfell, to grow the student enrolment at Grenfell, and we also recognize the importance of Grenfell College to the whole Western part of the Province and the economy of the Western part of the Province.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my debate on the bill.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 38 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 Memorial University Pensions Act No. 2. (Bill 38)

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

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

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act No. 2", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 38)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, Order 7, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, 2009. (Bill 42)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs that Bill 42, An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, 2009 be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 42, An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, 2009 be read a second time.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Vital Statistic Act, 2009". (Bill 42)

MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very happy to get up here today in regard to bringing forward three amendments to the Vital Statistics Act which was proclaimed on October 1, 2009, replacing the outdated Vital Statistics Act which was enacted in 1990. I think the most recent update in regard to that act was amended in 2004.

Since the time that the actual act was written, there has been numerous trends and changes in regard to certain aspects of the recording or the necessary requirements of recording under the Vital Statistics Act, such things as the registration of same-sex marriages; in the technology side in vitro fertilization and that kind of stuff; and information management was not addressed under the act of 1890.

We came forward with a new act to address these issues. I might also say if people do not understand, in regard to watching this hon. House today, that the Vital Statistics Act requires that certain information on birth, marriage and death in the Province be in a centralized agency and that is what this act is all about in regard to setting out the perimeters under which the certificates of these events can be provided.

As each act are before they are proclaimed, we do a review procedure to make sure that everything is right in regard to the act before it is proclaimed, then we can make a decision in regard to non pro-claimant, or we can make a decision in regard to future amendments that we may have to bring forward to address the issues that was found in regard to that procedure. We discovered, in regard to that review procedure, that we needed to make three changes under the new act. They are only minor in nature, but they are very, very important to ensure consistency in the legislation.

There are three areas in the act that we have to address. One, is the issue in regard to allowing nurse practitioners or registered nurses to certify deaths and stillbirths; the second one was to extend the time that was allowed for the registration of marriages; and the third was to allow authorized persons to obtain certain certificates of deceased persons. I will address each one of these in turn, which should clarify to each and every member of this House and anybody else that is interested in regard to the Vital Statistics Act why they are important and necessary in this hon. House today.

The first one will be to allow the nurse practitioners or registered nurses to certify deaths and stillbirths. In the past, in the old act, they were and did, do that procedure. Where that pertains to, where that is very, very, very important is in rural Newfoundland and Labrador where there might not be a practitioner, there might not be a medical examiner available to sign-off on that certificate of death. However, when we enacted a new act, and with the change of wording on the Vital Statistics Act, and it specifically says: medical practitioner, we were contacted by the Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador, and they believe now that nurses did not fit within the new title and therefore they cannot legally perform the functions.

These issues arise, as I just said before, in rural Newfoundland, but they also arise in regard to long-term care facilities, because sometimes a practitioner is not available, you have a high death rate in regard to these long-term facilities as well so a nurse will be the practical person to sign off on death certificates. Also, if we do not have that there you would have a creation of a delay process in regard to the families, which is stressful enough as it is that they are losing a loved one, now they have to wait for a medical practitioner or medical examiner to be found to sign off on the actual death certificate. So that would be a delay in regard to addressing the issues that the family would have in regard to the burial process too.

I think this is a very important piece here. It is probably the most important amendment that is there because it addresses an issue in regard to registered nurses and nurse practitioners, but also it addresses the particular families that might be involved in this process with regards to rural Newfoundland and Labrador and the stress that they find themselves in with the death of anybody within their family unit. So I think this is a very, very important piece of work.

The second piece surrounds the extension of time to allow for the registration of marriages. This one, mainly, is really a housekeeping piece of work because under the Marriage Act it specifically says seven days and under the Vital Statistics Act it says five days. So, we are going to amend the Vital Statistics Act to mirror the Marriage Act, and this sets the timelines for when a required marriage document can be returned to the marriage licence issuer. Also, it gives a little bit more time. Five days seems to be a lot of time maybe, but a seven-day period would be more reasonable in regard to getting that marriage certificate back into the hands of the issuer. So that is a housekeeping piece that we needed. We addressed that issue in regard to these amendments, too.

The third piece, in regard to the amendments, is to allow the authorized persons to obtain birth certificates of the deceased persons. This is a piece that clarifies exactly who will be allowed access to this piece of important information, it addresses privacy issue, too, in regard to what we find ourselves in today, in regard to the fraudulent activity in regard to foundation documents, et cetera. So we have to move forward on that and protect the privacy of personal information.

The access will be limited to a surviving spouse or a cohabiting partner, parent, adult child or adult sibling of the deceased, or the executor or administrator of the estate, or a person authorized in writing by one of these people, or a person with a court order. So, what I am saying is, in that regard, is that you still have access to that important piece of information if it is required for some issue surrounding the person that has passed away, that it would address issues in regard to their estate or whatever it may be. You can still get access, it is not bound that they cannot get it, because, in the simple way, if there are none of these people in regard to the sibling, or the administrator of the estate itself is not available, well then the person that is requesting the information can seek a court order to get that information released. In that case, there is access, we are not limiting the access, but we are protecting the privacy of the information itself in making sure that the proper processes are in place in order to get where it cannot be just got or received and then used for fraudulent activities.

So that is really the three pieces of the act, the amendments. I think they are important. Certainly the first one, I put a higher priority on in regard to the importance. The other two – one, in particular, the second one is a housekeeping piece, but all of them are important, because we have to consistency within the act itself. These provisions will certainly harmonize the wording and legislation relating to vital events.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think I have clarified the three amendments. I will look forward to any comments by my hon. members across the House. I also hope that they will support these amendments because they are very important to the actual process and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to be able to stand today with regard to Bill 42, An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, 2009. I guess to go along with the minister's last comments; yes, I will be supporting those amendments to this act. Even though the explanatory note says they are only minor attachments, I think they are very important changes and additions to this particular bill.

As the minister stated, there are three components to it. One is with respect to registration of marriages; the other one allows for nurse practitioners and registered nurses to be able to sign off on medical certificates, the portion with regard to death registration forms. The other one has to do with obtaining a birth certificate of a deceased person.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to subsection 14(3) and that is the one to do with the – previously under the old act it was only the medical practitioner who was in attendance at a stillbirth or a death of an individual, or another medical practitioner who was not at the scene but I guess within that facility could sign off. I can assure and verify what the minister said, this can become very stressful. I remember one incident myself, I happened to be in an ICU where family was there and this person passed away. All that was there, there was only one doctor on at that time and he was busy with other patients. Here you had a registered nurse and a nurse practitioner there but they were unable to do this at that time. It seemed like probably a month, but ten or fifteen minutes at a time like that to the family was very stressful.

I think, Mr. Speaker, this is an addition - like I said, that part, section 14(3) is repealed and there is additional information that is attached to that particular part of the legislation. When you go into sections 15 and 16, really it is a follow-through, more or less changing the regulations and guidelines. Many of them stay the same but each and every one of them has to do with regard to a medical practitioner not being on duty and the nurse practitioner or the registered nurse is able to carry out the duties that that particular doctor would have performed if he was there.

I notice in the act they reference section 17(2) from time to time, where if the cause of death was of a suspicious nature, then it is a bit more particular. Maybe the registered nurse and the other people could not sign off until the proper authorities came in and a proper examination and investigation was carried out.

As the minister stated under the one with regard to subsection 21(3): the act to amend by deleting the number and word "5 days" in substitution for the word "7 days". That is a very minor change, however it brings the Marriage Act in conjunction with the Vital Statistics Act, and it also gives an extra two days. Five days does not seem that long. If you are going to mail something in, then you have that timeline. So I think that is another additional part to that particular act.

The other one is section 30 of the act, to amend by adding immediately after subsection (2) the following. Under that particular part of the act there are different sections. Section 2 outlines people who can go and obtain birth certificates at this particular time, but we are referencing here birth certificates after the death of an individual.

As the minister stated, we live in a time and an age when we now have to have authorization before you can get information. We all know too well, as Members of the House of Assembly dealing with our constituents, whether it be EI issues, Canada pension issues. One time you could just phone up and get whatever information you wanted to help those people with appeals or to find out where the status of a particular claim stood, but you cannot do that in this day and age. You have to get an authorization form completed by the individual and that has to be faxed off to the authorities. So really what is happening here is no different. The only thing, in order to be able to obtain a birth certificate after the death of a person, and it is enclosed under (2.1). Each individual who is able to take part and obtain that birth certificate is listed under this portion of the act.

Mr. Speaker, really, that is the only three clauses that are there. As the minister stated, they are not major, however they have to be done from time to time. Issues have to change with the changing times, and I guess Bill 42 is no different. We know that there are quite a few issues that are listed under vital statistics in our Province and throughout our country, and from time to time they do have to change to correspond with the laws of the land.

So, Mr. Speaker, having said that, the few comments that I did make, we agree with the amendments to this particular act and I am sure that they will make changes for the betterment of the people of our Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to get up in this hon. House today and close debate in regard to second reading of this bill, An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, 2009, and the three amendments that I went over when I spoke.

I thank the hon. member for his insight, too, as well, and also his comments and support on the bill. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that I will belabour it because I went over it in detail. I think everybody understands the amendments themselves, and the importance of the amendments, even though they might seem to be a little bit of housekeeping but they are very, very important to the actual process and the continuity within the act itself, too, as well.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will close debate now and take my seat in the House in regard to second reading, and I will welcome any further comments or support in regard to committee stage on this important piece of work for the House of Assembly.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 42 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 Vital Statistics Act, 2009. (Bill 42)

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

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

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, 2009", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 42)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, Order 8, second reading of a bill, An Act To Repeal The Newspapers And Books Act. (Bill 43)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, that Bill 43, An Act To Repeal The Newspapers And Books Act, be read for the second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 43, An Act To Repeal The Newspapers And Books Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Newspapers And Books Act". (Bill 43)

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is, I guess, to do one's first bill as a minister in the House of Assembly is certainly an honour, and we all hope that we all have significant bills when we stand to present them in this House, but I can honestly say, Mr. Speaker, this is certainly not a very significant bill. It is one to repeal –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FRENCH: My colleagues are enjoying this, Mr. Speaker, because this bill is an act to repeal a piece of legislation that has been outdated, and is certainly a redundant piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation is actually - this bill is actually covered now under two current acts: the Corporations Act, and the Criminal Code of Canada. So, Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a redundant bill. It was actually passed in 1926and remains virtually unchanged to this day.

Mr. Speaker, the origin of the bill, ironically enough, was passed in 1916 by the Leader of the Opposition, and later Prime Minister from 1918-1919, a Mr. William Frederick Lloyd, a journalist and editor of The Telegram of the day. I guess it was fitting, Mr. Speaker, that a journalist and editor would want to keep a hold of what was printed in the local papers of the day. So, Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting thought that a journalist and editor turned politician. I do not think we have any of them today. I think they are smarter today than they were back then, Mr. Speaker, they stay away from politics and like to write about it. So I certainly salute him for that.

Mr. Speaker, it was designed back then so that newspapers and books did not contain any slander and writers could not publish defamatory remarks anonymously. So, Mr. Speaker, that is the way it goes –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Crackie does not count, I say to the hon. member of the House.

Mr. Speaker, at the time, this required that affidavits be signed by the president or CEO of a publishing company as well as the secretary, indicating the name of the publication and certainly the address where this material was being published. Mr. Speaker, today we know that, of course, that is covered off under the Corporations Act.

Mr. Speaker, any company which sets up in Newfoundland and Labrador is required to register, and certainly the registry accompanies them. Mr. Speaker, that is a very public registry; anybody can go on-line at any time and find who owns a company and certainly who the president would be, who the board of directors are, and so on.

Newspaper publishers certainly provide this information; a second time would be certainly a waste. After having to do it previous in current legislation, to have to do it again under this bill would be certainly a waste of their time and absolutely a useless piece of information for government.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, the defamatory piece of this, there are other ways to deal with that now, and certainly under section 300 of the Criminal Code of Canada, that can very easily be dealt with. So again, another reason why this piece of legislation is absolutely useless.

Mr. Speaker, again, it is certainly obsolete. It only serves to duplicate efforts that now I just identified under the two other acts.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. FRENCH: Oh, it is a very significant act, I say to members.

There are only currently three affidavits that have been signed under this act, Mr. Speaker, on file in the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. However, as we all know, there are only three affidavits filed. Can you imagine the number of publications we currently have in this Province? So, Mr. Speaker, that just goes to show that very few people are even applying with this piece of legislation. It is so old and so redundant and what it was needed for back in its day is covered off by other pieces.

Mr. Speaker, as I just mentioned the act has not been enforced and there are certainly no financial implications for the general public or for the business community other than the positive impact of not having to do something twice. Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to the repeal of redundant legislation and unused acts as general good government practice, and of course that is evident with our Red Tape Reduction strategy.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is unused, obsolete and no longer serves the needs of the Province or certainly the people.

Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words with respect to this particular piece of legislation.

I guess it is not monumental would be fair to say to the new minted Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. In fact, I understand that he approached it with some trepidation from the first piece because he thought he was actually going to be outlawing newspapers and books in the Province. He quickly, of course, had that explained to him and he realized that yes, we would still have the benefits of newspapers and books in the Province, even after he brought this piece of legislation forward, which gave him and all of us, of course, a great level of comfort to know that we would still have something to read in the Province and we were not going to be cast into the dark as it were.

It is indeed an old piece of legislation; it has existed for pretty well a century now. I would say to the minister, however, he made a comment about where it came from and he referred to a Leader of the Opposition back at that time in 1916, 1918 who subsequently became the Prime Minister of this Province. He made a comment to the effect that that person who was a Leader of the Opposition and subsequent Prime Minister of this Province was journalist at the time, and he did not know if journalists would get into the business any more and become politicians. He suggested sort of that maybe they are smarter today than they were back then, but I would remind the hon. minister that we indeed have a person in this Legislature today who was a former journalist and editor; we indeed do. I would also go so far as to say that that individual is very, very smart. In fact, I would put her on the top shelf of anyone who is in this House or ever been in this House in terms of her smarts and intellectual capability.

I am referring of course to none other than the Leader of the Official Opposition. The Leader of the Official Opposition is, in fact, a trained journalist, was trained in Stephenville; undertook the necessary three, four-year course, and worked with what is now known today as the Robinson-Blackmore papers. She worked in Labrador for quite some time; I do believe probably even in the St. Anthony area.

We do have someone who is here who is similar to the former Prime Minister, and I am willing to bet my dollars that she might well become a Premier of this Province as well, similar to that gentleman. Now that causes some trepidation on the other side as well, I am sure. That causes some trepidation as well. That is a very valuable piece of information.

I also note that the minister talked about – and they put this under the category now of the Red Tape Reduction strategy. Anyone who has been in the media watching in the past years, what has for year and years been called housekeeping and cleaning up the statutes, we now have this Administration classifying it as a piece of the Red Tape Reduction strategy - very interesting. It seems that they will do anything to justify the existence of a program, Mr. Speaker.

It is like the day I was here last spring when the former Member for Terra Nova, who was the Minister of Business, stood in this hon. House and gave a Ministerial Statement about the Red Tape Reduction program. He said we are making great headway. Great headway, he said. By the way this is what we are going go to do. He turned around and announced, right in the very same statement, the creation of three new programs that did exactly that; create red tape. He did not see the irony of his own statement, Mr. Speaker, that day.

Anyway, I agree with the minister, this is a cleanup piece of legislation. I would have hoped as well that he had a more monumental introductory piece of legislation to stake his ministerial career on in this House. I guess we all have to live with what the Government House Leader decides to bring in and what we have to move forward with. I am sure, in the future, we can look forward to this minister bringing in, indeed, some monumental pieces of legislation as time goes on.

Mr. Speaker, we will not be vociferously opposing this piece of legislation, in fact, we will be supporting it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am not sure if the Leader of the NDP is going to be casting any opposition to this but this is probably one of the things that the government will rest assured, we are not going to be offside on this one at all.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation speaks now he shall close debate.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a nice bill because of course we can have a little bit of fun and a little bit of sport with this. I really did not realize that the current Leader of Official Opposition was a publisher and a reporter and I certainly apologize but I just want to remind the Opposition to remember that the last person who passed this bill ended up being Prime Minister, and I say she has a better chance of being Prime Minister today than she do Premier, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: So, I certainly want to encourage her. I certainly want to encourage her federal ambitions, Mr. Speaker, and who knows? Maybe I will pick up a few delegates for her up my way if she goes on for the big job, Mr. Speaker.

On that note, Mr. Speaker, as well I would just like to touch on Red Tape Reduction. That is a significant piece of work that this government undertook a few years back. We have moved on it considerably, Mr. Speaker. I think any time that we can get rid of red tape for the general public or indeed useless legislation, it is certainly time well spent in this House.

On that note, Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much, and thank the hon. member for his comments. Maybe I will ask him to, get him to sign my bill as well, Mr. Speaker, when it finally goes through.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 43 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 Repeal The Newspapers And Books Act. (Bill 43)

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

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

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Newspapers And Books Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 43)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, Order 9, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act. (Bill 45)

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act". (Bill 45)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce Bill 45, An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act, at second reading.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to require peace officers in the Province to provide information concerning victims to the Victims of Crime Services Division. The nature of the information to be provided, Mr. Speaker, and the form of the information will be subject to regulations authorized by the Minister of Justice.

Before I speak to the specifics of the bill, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for a minute about the Victims of Crime Services Division of the Department of Justice. It was established in 1992, and in 2005 the services were broadened to include a dedicated court preparation program for child victims and child witnesses less than sixteen years of age. Prior to that time, the services of children were limited to provision of assistance with victim impact statements.

Mr. Speaker, the implementation and delivery of the Victim Services program is based on the principles that victims should be treated with courtesy, with compassion and with respect. Victims should suffer the minimum of necessary inconvenience because of their involvement in the criminal justice system. Victims are already traumatized by the circumstances surrounding the alleged crime or the charge. So, for that reason, victims should receive prompt and fair redress in the justice system, and this is what Victims of Crime Services Division does.

The Victims of Crime Services Division is tasked with the mandate of providing services to victims of crime with the aim of ensuring that they are able to participate meaningfully in the criminal justice process and that they have access to programs that are necessary for healing and for recovery. They can avail of these programs at any time during the criminal justice system; they do not have to, of course. It is all voluntary. No fees. The priority for services is mostly on victims of violent crimes, but the nature of the incidents and nature of the victim can change that determination. The children's component of the program ensures court preparations available to all children, both victims and witnesses, who must testify in criminal proceedings.

That Victims Services Division was established by this government as a component of the Department of Justice in 1992. With respect to the type of services – I think it is important to just speak for a minute to the type of services that this program provides to victims in the criminal justice system. I will just run through some of them, Mr. Speaker. The service will provide general information about the criminal justice system to all the victims and their families; it will provide specific information about a case as it moves through the court to enable the victim to participate more meaningfully in the process; it offers pre-court preparation so the victim is more informed and prepared for court proceedings; and it offers assistance with preparation in filing of victim impact statements; and it also identifies other community services that might be available to victims. Of course, it provides emotional support and counselling. It also provides, as I mentioned, a specialized court preparation program for child victims and witnesses.

Mr. Speaker, help is provided through this service through eleven regional offices in the Province: St. John's, Carbonear, Clarenville, Marystown, Gander, Grand Falls-Windsor, Corner Brook, Stephenville, Port Saunders, Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Nain. Now, with the exception of the two offices in St. John's and Corner Brook, the other offices are shared with the probation officers around the Province. I had a great visit, only last week, with the Victim Services information officer, they share the same floor in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

There are nineteen-and-a-half permanent regional co-ordinator positions and there are eight shared Clerk I positions that provide services to the co-located probation and Victim Services offices. There is another one-and-a-half clerk position for the Victim Services stand-alone offices. There is an administrative assistant and one provincial manager. There is a special project co-ordinator position, and a half-time regional co-ordinator position funded temporarily by the federal government. As well now, we also have a Specialized Family Violence Court regional co-ordinator that is temporarily funded through the Poverty Reduction Strategy.

The Victim Services Division, Mr. Speaker, works very closely with policing agencies and the Crown Attorney's office, and also with non-governmental stakeholders, like the women's community transitional houses, and regional coalitions against violence.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the justice system can be quite intimidating and victims find it very helpful to get information about their rights and the kinds of programs and services that are available to them. In order for the Victim Services programs to get to the victim, then the Victim Services Division has to know who the victims are and where they are. They need contact information, and that is what this bill is all about. They must know who the victims are, contact information, who the victim is and some basic information about the victim.

In this Province, it is often the police offices in our Province who are the first and perhaps the only point of contact with a victim of crime in the justice system. In our Province also, both the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police work with Victim Services by providing contact information to victims, as well as supplying information to the victims about the services that are offered. In addition, Mr. Speaker, victim information is also being provided by those police agencies to the Victim Services Division so that the Victim Services Division can contact the victim following the initial police response.

As I mentioned, the nature of the information that would be provided will be determined by regulations and approved by the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, in recent years, while this information has been forthcoming from the police forces, that information sharing is becoming increasingly more difficult as a result of privacy legislation. The current act, the Victims of Crime Services Act, does not oblige police officers working within the Province to provide this information. They are not required to provide it. The whole issue of victim consent comes into play here.

The objective of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that the police officers that work within the Province, provide this important information about a victim to Victim Services; thereby strengthening the referral process between Victim Services and the police agencies in the Province.

In addition, there would be certainty that the sharing of this information between police officers and the Victims of Crime Services Division would not be contrary to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. So it would establish clarity among police officers as to what their obligation is.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this amendment is a positive one. It is about one arm or agency of justice sharing information with another. The public, especially victims of crime, will benefit from this amendment as it strengthens the referral process between the police agencies and the Victim Services Division. It will also ensure that victims will receive the much needed information about services and programs that are designed to support the victim.

This link is necessary, Mr. Speaker, because at the time of the offence or the charge or the circumstances which give rise to all of this, it can be very traumatic occasions for the victims. At the time of the offence, they are not of sufficient mind and clarity of mind to make the contact that is necessary to Victim Services or might not even know about Victim Services.

It is a very positive bill. I hope we can get the co-operation of all members of the House in passing it, and I look forward to participation from both sides of the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words with respect to this particular piece of legislation.

As the minister has stated, of course, we have had a Victim Services Division of the Department of Justice for some years now - just about twenty years. I believe it was back in 1992 that it actually started and we have it throughout different regions of the Province. Indeed, it is a very valuable and useful service to have.

It is quite often the people who get lost in the justice system are the victims. We have all kinds of rights enshrined in our constitution; we have all kinds of protective measures in place for accused persons. We have a legal aid system for these people; we have, as I say, the constitution, which determines what you can and cannot do for them. We do not have, and we did not have in the past, many services in place that would help the actual victims of the crime. That was a crime in itself, the fact that we never had any services and did not have any services to help them.

This service, of course, does some pretty basic and simple things. If you are a victim in the system, it is not all about a prosecutor and a judge and an accused person and a defence counsel. If this thing goes to trial, or even if there is a guilty plea and somebody needs to prepare a statement to say who was impacted, how were they impacted and what happened here, we need a victim impact statement, somebody has to make contact with that victim and get the information that is required. In the past, that person never had any help in how to prepare it, where is it going to go, how does the system work, am I going to get called as a witness, does anybody tell me before I go in the courtroom if I am going to be asked questions, and so on.

It is a very traumatic situation. The crime itself is traumatic enough, but then when the person who is the victim of the crime is further traumatized because they do not understand the system and know what role they play in it, and so on, it often leads to an injustice again.

I personally have had many cases where a person was victimized. I was a prosecutor for eighteen years in the system. I prosecuted fisheries, drugs, aeronautics, and so on, for eighteen years on the West Coast. Quite often, I had situations where the victims were petrified of having to go to court to give evidence, and they were the victims. Of course, once this service came about in 1992, it was so much easier for them and so much easier for the system, because if you did not have the service, judges ended up having to try do what these people now do. Prosecutors ended up trying to have to explain the system and do for these people what now the people in Victim Services do for them, to give them a comfort level. They should not have to be upset, traumatized. How do they get prompt and fair redress under our system? That is what it was all about.

Fortunately, we, as a Province, responded to that. We responded to it in 1992, and the current Administration responded to it big time in 2005, expanded it even further beyond adults, gave it to children and so on. Quite often in our system, as well, it is children that were impacted. Particularly when you see a lot of sexual assault cases that took place that involved children, and they needed the assistance. So it is great to see that we have it.

Now, of course, we are here today because obviously there are still some problems with it. That is not unusual. Lots of times you create a new program to respond to a certain need, but it does not always work the way that you hoped it would, or sometimes you just did not anticipate, in the first instance, what was going to be involved. There were circumstances you could not possibly contemplate. It is only when those circumstances come about later, that someone in the system again says: Excuse me, what you have is great, but it does not work like we want it to. There is something here that we could tinker with that we can change to make it do and give even better results than it is intended to do. I believe that is what we are dealing with here today. Bill 45 is just such a measure to try to improve upon something we already have that needs a little bit of changing here to make it even better.

I ask the minister here, because this is an opportunity, of course, the minister introduces a bill and it gives the opposing parties, the Opposition, an opportunity to say: Why is it here now today, for example, versus it was not here before. Is this the earliest opportunity that it could have gotten here? What prompted it to come here? Is there any particular circumstance that brought this Bill 45 to be where it is today? Was there some particular circumstance that prompted this, or was it just a culmination of different reports, different incidents that we saw that were reported back to justice officials, reported to people who work in Victim Services that required that this change be dealt with at this time?

Now, if you give a very close reading of it, it says: The amendment will require RCMP and RNC police officers – I think they use the phrase: peace officers – to provide Victim Services, the Victim Services Division, with information that these peace officers have in their possession about a victim that the minister may require by regulation. So that would indicate to me that there is a glitch in the system right now because it is specifically saying that peace officers – and peace officers in our Province include the RCMP and the RNC. Do we have a situation right now in our justice system whereby these peace officers are not providing the information? Has there been some case where they wilfully have not provided it as opposed to there is nothing requiring them to provide it?

I think that is very relevant because we all know that police officers have their hands full as it is. I mean you need only to talk to anyone, whether you are RCMP or RNC. There is lots of crime on the go. There is lots of paperwork involved in the files. There is so much now in fact that onuses and duties and obligations put and placed upon peace officers when it comes to preparing a court case, for example, that it is ten times, it is hundredfold what it used to be years ago, given the advent of changes to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and so on. I would like to know what prompted it because it seems to me that somebody in the police officer corps, group, did not give the information that was requested and required by another group, for example, the Victim Services people. So I think if the minister could educate us and give us some better understanding of that, we would at least know why we are doing this and how and why it was necessary to be here. I can only assume that somebody had some difficulty getting compliance from peace officers on providing information about the victims.

The other thing I would like to ask here is, has any thought been given as to the nature of the information and the form it is going to take? It seems pretty broad open, wide open now. It says that "…the minister may require by regulation." That is a pretty broad statement. We all know we live in an environment today where privacy rights are a major, major concern. In fact, we brought into being in this Province through our ATIPP legislation a big piece of that, a big section of that was privacy. It took us years to get around to bringing it in, lots of stuff had to be done to prepare different bodies, governmental bodies, government departments but the privacy legislation is now alive and well here.

So, what kind of parameters, if any, is going to be placed upon the minister when it comes to this getting of the information? Because it is pretty wide open. We are saying here, this individual, whoever he or she might be at that time, you decide what information is going to be provided by the police officers or the peace officers about the victims to Victim Services. That is pretty wide open. So, I think some information should be forthcoming before we are expected to actually vote on this as to what the current minister feels, or thinks these regulations might look like down the road. We always have to be vigilant and protecting of people's rights. I would not want to – I can appreciate here where you are coming from. Based upon the surface of it, I think it is a good idea to say, yes peace officers, Victim Services needs more information to do their job properly in the advancement of the rights of the victims. This is what you are going to do. I have not problem with that at all. So I support the principle of what we are doing here, but I have some concern as to the limitations of those regulations.

Now, maybe the general public are not aware, but the regulations only come about after the fact, to my knowledge, most often. Sometimes there are regulations already in being in existence when the law is passed, the bill is passed and this bill becomes law. Sometimes the regulations that go with it are right there ready to implement at that time. Most often that is not how it works. The legislation that we are going to pass here will give the minister the right to make a regulation and then the regulations get done. So, you are sort of trying to cure the problem. You know what the symptoms are, you know what the problem is and you are trying to cure it and fix it, and this is going to give somebody the right to try to fix it, for example, the minister. The minister is going to try to fix it with these regulations but we do not know anything about the regulations, and therein lies the nub of the problem.

Can the minister tell us what he sees as the parameters of his discretion, his requirements, and his criteria that will be put in these regulations when he demands of these peace officers this information? We have had lots of cases in this Province where the motivation was great, the intentions were great, the law was passed, but then later you question whether or not the regulatory part of it reflects accurately and properly and clearly and fairly what you tried to do in the legislation. Now, of course, if they are not done properly that causes a racket, and this is not about causing a racket here. This is about trying to make the system work for the betterment of the victims. It is an education process as well.

By the way, there are lots of people out here in this Province who have no idea that these services exist, no idea they exist. A lot of people feel like they are on their own. They are the victim of a crime, a crime happens. Now I know the government has tried to publicize it, try to make people aware of it. Peace officers, in fact, do now try to inform people who are victims that it is there, but there are still a lot who do not know that it exists. So whatever the government can do, of course, to educate people more as to the existence of this program, the better.

Now, there was also a case – and I do not want to get into details here, and specifics, and I will not, but I will try to make the point without referencing any, and I will not reference any personal information. It is for the purpose of explaining the example of when it happened and how it happened that there is another glitch. I refer to an incident where a person reported a crime. They were the victim of a crime, a very serious crime, actually. This particular individual reported a crime that she had been the subject of a sexual assault. It was reported to the police, the police opened the file, and they started their investigation. In the course of their investigation of that incident, the sexual assault case, they had occasion to be at the victim's home interviewing her with regard to that charge that she laid, that investigation she wanted done. They noticed that she herself might have committed a crime. Another crime, totally unrelated to the crime that she reported. She reported a crime of sexual assault; when the police came to her home to investigate, they said: we came here to get information from you, ma'am, about that crime, but we notice that you might yourself have committed a crime. Totally unrelated, nothing to do with sexual assault; it had to do with some commercial transactions, just to show how divergent the two issues were. That person could not access Victim Services.

The fact that that victim was herself being accused of another crime totally unrelated, she was not allowed to avail of the Victim Services in regard to the sexual assault because she was accused of one crime, therefore she could not avail of the Victim Services. Now that caused quite a problem. It was resolved and it got resolved because an exception was made. Under the old rules, when that happened and everybody sat down, cooler heads prevailed, rational thought prevailed and they decided – I do not know if it was the minister of the day or the head of the police or whatever – but somebody decided, there is a problem here. There is obviously a disconnect here. You cannot deny a victim of this crime the right to Victim Services simply because something else happened over here, and it got fixed.

I point this out for the sole reason of showing that it was done as an exception. It was not done and does not exist, to my knowledge, in the system as a rule, as a law.

I do not think that type of circumstance should have an exception made. To me, if you are a victim and you satisfy the criteria to get Victim Services, you should get it. If we are going to go down that path of using that logic, we are going to get into judging and say because you are charged with a certain crime you should not get any representation in the courtroom, which is totally unacceptable in our system.

I point that out to the minister because that exists and I am wondering if he can give us any information about that type of circumstance. Are there any drawbacks right now or situations whereby victims of crime are automatically not qualified for Victim Services because you yourself might have committed another crime?

Maybe it has all been clarified, maybe there have been some changes, regulatory or otherwise, but I think it would be important because this issue that I referred to; it was not a minor matter, it occupied the media in this Province for quite some time. It would be nice to see if we do get an answer on that. That is another thing I would point out about Victim Services. Or will these types of complicated issues, shall we say, is that the kind of thing that the minister is going to try to look after by regulation? So I would just like to know the interactions between these two issues as well.

Other than that, Mr. Speaker, we certainly will be supportive of this Bill 45, the principle of it. We do have these issues about what ultimately will end up in the regulations, but that is the way the system works. We have to make step one before we can get to step two. So we will be supportive of it, but we just point these things out. If the minister can educate us to indicate what will be the type of regulatory framework, it would give everybody a bigger comfort level, shall we say, when you vote for it right here now.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): Thank you very much.

The Speaker would like to recognize now Mr. Dan Pottle who is the Speaker of the Nunatsiavut government.

Welcome, sir, to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am really glad that your attention was drawn to the fact that I was standing because I do want to speak to this bill. I think it is a very important amendment that is being brought in today. When I first saw it I asked myself the question: Well, what is this about? Why is this being brought in?

I realized then that this particular point was not in the original act or the amended act of 2005, but doing some digging and asking some questions, I found out how important this is. In actual fact, right now, the status in the Province is that the two law enforcement agencies do not do what is being required in this amendment.

By that, I mean that we have two agencies, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the RCMP - the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. At the moment, the RNC does provide contact information to Victim Services on every crime victim, so that Victim Services can phone the person and find out if the person wants to use their services. That is an ongoing practice with RNC. I was really glad to hear that it was.

It seems that there is a difference when it comes to the RCMP. The RCMP, I understand, I have been told that the RCMP on the ground here in Newfoundland and Labrador want to be able to provide the contact information to Victim Services, but as a federal agency they are under the federal Privacy Commissioner, and the commissioner has made a ruling that the Privacy Act, on a federal level, does not allow information sharing. Now, I can understand that when the RCMP is operating in a federal jurisdiction, why they would be covered by the federal Privacy Act, but right now, unless a province does something about it, because of the ruling of the federal Privacy Commissioner, the RCMP may not share information.

Right now in Canada, we have a patchwork of practices going on across the country. So there are some places where the RCMP are recognized as a provincial police force, and where they are recognized as a provincial police force then there they can be regulated and managed – or regulated is the important word, under the Province.

Nova Scotia has already done that. Nova Scotia, right now, is the only province that has passed legislation that is similar to the bill that we are looking at here today, which is An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act. In Nova Scotia, they already have legislation that says that all police forces in the Province of Nova Scotia must provide the information to Victim Services. They, too, have a provision for regulations in the legislation, and unfortunately they do not have their regulations written yet.

So I would hope that when we pass this bill - because I think we should pass this bill and I am certainly going to be supporting the passing of this bill. When we put this bill in place, I would hope that our Minister of Justice will move very quickly to make sure that the process for getting regulations in place begins immediately. It is no sense having the bill, which we can have in pretty short order in this Province, unless the regulations are put in place. So, knowing that it has already happened in Nova Scotia, we know that there is a legal precedent for doing what we are doing here today, I am really glad that the Justice department did the research that was needed to know that we could go ahead with this legislation today.

What will happen through section 15, which will be a new section in the act in the Victims of Crime Services Act, this section 15 will require any provincial police force to provide contact information to Victim Services. Now, in actual fact, people may wonder is this a privacy issue, but once one is a victim and, as a victim, you are in the system, it is public information; the type of information that could be passed on to Victim Services. Because what is being passed on is contact information, so it is already in the public system, that information, so it is one arm of the public sector passing the information, the contact information, to another arm of the public sector.

What will be important is coming up with the kind of information. Now I understand that some of the discussions that are going on indicate that regulations could stipulate the contact information. Regulations could stipulate the nature of the offence, but no more information. That kind of information is information that would be in the system and would be easily accessible because of the public nature of a crime and the fact that a crime is being publicly reported.

By doing this, it is not that people are being forced to use Victim Services; it does not operate that way now. What happens is, the information about the victim is passed on to Victim Services, they contact the victim, and then it is up to the victim to say whether or not he or she wants help from Victim Services.

So I think this is really important to recognize, that this is not forcing anybody. Also, it is not bringing in anything new because we already have it happening with the RNC. So the RNC already has the practice of passing the information – the contact information regarding a victim – on to Victim Services.

What this bill will do is not bring in something new into the Province in terms of the practice, but bring in something new in terms of who will do it. So it will not just be the RNC who will pass information on; it will also be the RCMP, because they will designated as a police force within this Province and therefore those actions are under provincial jurisdiction, not federal jurisdiction. As I said already, it is working in Nova Scotia; we know that it can work here.

I understand from some research that we have done that there was some cursory consultation done with women's organizations on this issue, and I am glad to know that some outreach happened to the women's organizations; because, unfortunately, and people may be – I suppose they will not be - surprised to hear it, but the majority of victims of crime are women. A fact sheet that was done by the Women's Policy Office that covered a period from 2006-2008 - the fact sheet is called RNC victim age and gender analysis - that fact sheet shows us that between 2006 and 2008 women were the victims of 80 per cent of cases of harassment, bodily harm, sexual assault and other sex crimes.

Something else that we also find on that fact sheet is: two-thirds of cases of sexual assault involving a weapon were against women. So, when it comes to one whole area of crimes in this Province, women are the largest group of victims.

In the past twenty years, more than twenty women have been killed in a domestic homicide in Newfoundland and Labrador. Looking at women and children, in 2007-2008, 1,107 women and children were admitted to emergency shelters in this Province, and that comes from the annual Transition House survey. So, we can see from just these small number of facts - and there are many more that I could use, but I will not do that - we can see that women are major victims of crime in this Province, and it is women who most access the Victim Services.

This amendment is going to be really important to women, because right now there is a discrepancy, an inequality, between women who are in jurisdictions covered by the RCMP and women who are in jurisdictions covered by the RNC. This way all women, and men too, no matter where they are in the Province, if they are victims of a crime, they will be contacted by Victim Services to let them know about the service, if they want to avail of it. I think this is really important.

I absolutely do support this bill, and I am very happy to see it. The one thing I would say to the minister, and I do not know if he has information that he can share with us today about this – it is not in the bill itself but it is going to be a follow-up to the bill - I would hope that in putting the regulations together that the department will consult; not tell them after the fact, not inform them afterwards, but actually have representation from women's organizations involved in putting the regulations together. I think that would be extremely important. They could be representatives, front line staff from women centres and the transition houses in particular, because they are the ones who provide many services to women victims of violence.

I would be happy to hear from the minister what the plans are with regard to getting the regulations in place as quickly as possible, and the consultation process that would be followed by the department in putting the regulations together.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to make these points and I look forward to passing this bill.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, I am happy today to rise to speak and give my full support for this new bill. This new protocol, Mr. Speaker, really strengthens our commitment in intervention in and prevention of violence.

Mr. Speaker, as most people in this House know – most members of the House would know, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador know – this is a very important issue to this government. In tackling the issues of violence we have a $12 million Violence Prevention Initiative over a six year period.

It is an extremely huge problem for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, for the people of Canada, Mr. Speaker, and of the world. It is really unfortunate that we find ourselves in the position that we have to deal with this issue time and time and time again. It is a very, very serious issue, Mr. Speaker.

As I said in my Ministerial Statement on the Montreal massacre earlier today, many, many people are living with violence in our society, especially women. Mr. Speaker, the majority of the victims of violence is women. Women make up 88 per cent of all family violence victims. One of our two police forces reported – or the two police forces together reported – that we had over 4,300 incidents of violence against women in this Province between 2006 and 2008. That is staggering, Mr. Speaker. In a small population such as ours, that is very, very frightening. The fact that only 10 per cent of those cases are reported to the police, Mr. Speaker, speaks to the fear, the secrecy, and the lack of support that victims feel around this issue.

Mr. Speaker, of the 218,000 women that we have over the age of fifteen in this Province, over 100,000 of them will experience an incident of physical or sexual violence in their life. That is so frightening. We are talking about our mothers, our sisters, our daughters -

AN HON. MEMBER: Ourselves.

MS DUNDERDALE: We are talking about ourselves, Mr. Speaker.

There is no one who is exempt, no one who is fully protected from that kind of abuse and violence in our lives. There is not one of us, Mr. Speaker, or one small group of us, or one gender that can address this problem. This is something that we all have to take on as communities and as societies to try and end this dreadful, dreadful scourge on all of us.

This new legislation, Mr. Speaker, means that we will have a protocol now where women who report crimes to the police will have access to important victim services in a confidential and timely manner. Some of these supports that are going to be provided, Mr. Speaker, through the Victim Services, are access to individual counselling.

Mr. Speaker, even though violence has been a part - you know, it has been part of everybody's life in some way or another. Either it has happened to you, it has happened in your own family or it has happened in your community. Now whether or not we acknowledge it, Mr. Speaker, because sometimes we all become the holders of the secret. We all allow violence to continue because we are afraid to talk about it. We will not name it, and none of us want to deal with it but all of us are familiar. Everybody knows in the community where there are - if there are homes where violence takes place. They know that people arrive with blackened eyes and broken arms and so on, and many times we do not want to deal with it but when we do not want to deal with it, Mr. Speaker, nothing gets done about it.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand the dynamics of violence. You know often you hear people say, why doesn't she just leave? It is not as simple as that, Mr. Speaker. If women could get up and walk out of a situation most of them would. There is a great deal of fear that is associated with abuse. There is amazing control that is associated with abuse. Women, when they leave violent situations are at the greatest risk of being terribly maimed or killed. There is not a lot that any of us can say that can allay that fear to a great degree. Their children are threatened, their families are threatened. It is not an easy thing to do, especially when you have children and they depend on you for support. Women who leave marriages find themselves in a reduced economic circumstance.

Statistics and studies have shown that when a marriage falls apart men's income tends to rise while women's sink on the economic scale and often women leaving abusive situations face a lifetime of poverty. That is extremely difficult to deal with, especially when children are involved. There are lots of things that women will tolerate to try and ensure that their children have clothes, they have food, they have access to education, and that they have an opportunity to get out of the violent situation. They will take abuse onto themselves, physical, emotional, economical abuse on themselves, if they figure that they can protect their children.

They need support, individual support and counselling, in terms of coming to understand the dynamics of violence and helping them to get the strength, the courage and the support they need to move away from the violent situation. They need information about shelters and housing options, Mr. Speaker. This protocol will ensure that they get that information. It is all fine and dandy to say, well, there is a shelter there, and a shelter is a very important component of a transition out of a violent life, but it is only step one. What happens after you leave the shelter? You have to have somewhere that is comfortable and safe to lay your head. Alternative living arrangements other than the family home are not often easy to find, or questions like how am I going to pay for this are not easily answered. So, Victim Services provides those kinds of supports and information to victims of violence.

Information on the court process, Mr. Speaker, and the status of their own specific court cases; we all need that, but if you are in a depressed economic situation, if you are in a depressed emotional state, if you are in a state of fearfulness, Mr. Speaker, all of this becomes much more complicated and intimidating. These kinds of supports have to be provided so that victims can get justice, Mr. Speaker.

Assistance with victim impact statements for the court process; it is important for all victims to be able to articulate the impact of violence on their lives. Mr. Speaker, most victims are trained for a very long time to believe that whatever happened to them was their own fault, was their own doing. It is a critical tool that abusers use. If you had cleaned the house better, I would not have had to hit you. If you had looked after the children better, I would not have had to beat you. If you had bought the groceries like you should have and only spent the amount of money you should have, I would not have had to lock you down in the basement. Women are absolutely controlled and told that whatever happens to them is their own fault. That is hard to overcome.

When you have had years and years and years of abuse, Mr. Speaker, it tears away at every part of your being. It is soul destroying. For women to be able to understand that the fault does not lie with them; the fault lies with the abuser. You know, that you do not have to listen to accusations that it is your own fault - that people do not mean in a harmful way, sometimes. People say things that are callous and cruel without ever understanding the impact their words are having on victims. Sometimes it really is a genuine question: Why do people stay in violent situations? It is being asked because people genuinely do not understand the dynamics of violence. When that question is posed, there is a burden of guilt and inadequacy that is often layered on top of everything else with victims. So, for a victim to be able to go before the courts and articulate clearly to the court the effect of abuse is extremely important. It affects self-esteem, it affects how the perpetrator of that violence is going to be treated. It helps the courts understand the scope of the crime, the impact that that has had on women, on children, on families. So, to have our police forces automatically refer victims to Victim Services so that they can avail of these services is extremely, extremely important.

Mr. Speaker, all of us, as I said, have a role to play in the elimination of violence. We launched our Respect Women Campaign this year, and I have to tell you, the positive feedback we have had from the community is wonderful. Words are important, and this is a difficult subject to talk about in community and in families. So, through our Respect Women Campaign, we are trying to create an environment where we can have thoughtful discussions about the issue and that everybody can be engaged in trying to find solutions.

Mr. Speaker, women know that all men are not abusers. Women have wonderful relationships with men in their lives. So many of us do, with our fathers, with our brothers, with our sons. When we talk about all of the issues around inequality, it is not about blaming.

I like to say, Mr. Speaker, it is about loving. I have a son and I have a daughter and both who are great blessings in my life. I have always said it is not about not liking men or not loving men. For me, feminism is about loving my daughter as much as I love my son, wanting the world to be as fair and open and accessible and as safe to her as it is to him. He has the advantage of being judged on his ability. Women are often judged on their gender. All of the talents and strengths and gifts that women have are often not recognized and dismissed because we use old ways of thinking and acting. We all need to examine that.

Eighty-eight percent of victims are women in family violence situations. The majority of violence against women is perpetrated by men; not by all men, but by men. That is a huge problem for all of us; for men and for women.

What we do in the Respect Women Campaign is ask men to start taking some responsibility for their gender, which is extremely important and a responsible thing to do. To take responsibility for the community and to take responsibility in eliminating this scourge of violence against women by men.

We look at the wonderful relationships that exist in our families and communities, for most of us, with the males in our lives; very loving, respectful relationships and we are saying to men we need you to model these behaviours to the young boys in your life. This is something that we need to talk about; this is just not an automatic transfer. You need to talk to your sons about women, about who they are, about the role they play in society and how critical it is that we respect one another. It does not mean we are the same. It does not mean we are the same, Mr. Speaker; we are never going to be the same. None of us want to be the same. Life impacts on us differently and the world impacts on us differently.

It is important to come here in places like this and be able to say, as women, this is how life impacts on me, this is the effect that it has on me. In terms of creating policy and programs to deal with certain things like education, like health care, like child care, all of those kinds of things, then you need to understand what my experience is as a woman; why that effect of that program or policy may not be the same for me as it is for a man.

I had a wonderful example of that when I attended the COF meetings on behalf of the Premier this summer, and the discussion was around EI. All the premiers around the table were talking about the impact of the recession and the downturn in the economy was going to have on men and how they were going to be affected. I kept saying that we needed to come back, that was very important but we also – in the context of EI reform – needed to talk about the impact of pregnancy, for example, on women. Three times I had to make the point that it was estimated that 76,000 men were going to impacted by the downturn in the economy and their need for Employment Insurance, and the fact that over 360,000 women were going to give birth in Canada this year and needed also to have reform so that they could have support in terms of bringing new life into the world, supporting that and yet, at the same time, as parents, being still able to maintain an attachment to the workforce that we all know is extremely important.

One of the premiers turned to me after my third attempt, and a successful attempt the third time, to say: We are really glad you persisted in that and kept providing information and so on. It was not because of any ill intention here at the Premier's table that we did not address it. We did not address it because somebody did not put it on the table. There wasn't that awareness; there wasn't that lens.

That is why it is so important to have women around when we talk about these kinds of things, when we talk about things like Victim Services, because we need to talk about what is really going on in our society. Where is the majority of the violence being perpetrated? What is it that we need to do to support victims of violence? What is it we need to do beyond that, as a society to deal with violence, to say that there is zero tolerance in this society for abuse – for physical abuse on children, on women, and on men? It is a big piece of work that we have to do together; there is a great sensitivity that is required to understand the dynamics of violence. We need to stop the blaming. We need to start understanding what is going on in people's lives, what the triggers are, why it is that people put up with abuse. It is not because they are weak. It is not because they are weak, Mr. Speaker. It is because they are caught in a circumstance, sometimes, that feels that it is completely beyond their control.

When we bring forward our violence prevention campaign, when we work through poverty reduction, through the Department of HRLE, when we do initiatives like this with the Department of Justice, it is important to have that lens there. When you put that lens there, Mr. Speaker, we get the kind of initiatives that are being brought forward here by the minister today.

I am pleased to be able to stand here today and say this is good work, and we are absolutely delighted with it. It is a small piece again, on top of what we need to do, but we have to carve it off as best we can and layer it and layer it, and all of us work together to eliminate violence against everybody in our society, and make it all a safe place for men, women and children.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: First of all, the Speaker would like to thank all hon. members for their attention for the last hour. I very, very much appreciate it, given that I am the new kid on the block.

If the hon. the Minister of Justice speaks now, he will close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

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

I thank the hon. members opposite and my colleague, for her comments, in speaking in support of this bill.

In response to the comments that were raised, a couple of things I would just like to mention. The hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi hit the nail on the head, Mr. Speaker, with her response to one of the questions raised by the Opposition House Leader, in that this amendment puts a requirement on both police forces in the Province to supply this information. The problem with it at the moment, there is nothing in the legislation that requires that. So they do it voluntarily, and in co-ordination and collaboration with Victim Services. Both police forces, incidentally, are providing it as we speak. The RNC, in fact, in St. John's has an electronic service that provides that information, and the RNC has no problem with this amendment. Neither does the RCMP, but the RCMP is governed, Mr. Speaker, by the federal Privacy Act and the federal Privacy Commissioner, and there is a question, an issue of interpretation raised by the Privacy Commissioner with respect to victim consent, and that consent of the victim should be acquired before the information is provided.

Now, the RCMP, in some cases, is providing this information anyway but the problem is with the federal legislation, and subsequently, this legislation sort of trumps that requirement. I should say that the RCMP – this has nothing to do with the RCMP locally. The RCMP locally are doing a terrific job and co-operating to the extent that they can, but because of this uncertainty that is there with victim consent, then sometimes that information is not coming through, and that is the response to the hon. Opposition House Leader.

At the point of contact, Mr. Speaker, the point of contact at the time of the crime, victims are not necessarily of the state of mind to make an informed decision and so may not give consent, but yet would avail of the service readily if they knew about them. So this establishes the certainty and the clarity that we want, and when police forces will be contracted to work in this Province, will be subject to provincial legislation, and of course, this legislation will have this amendment now that was not there before.

With respect to the information that will be requested, the regulations would be developed, and we will only look for basic, minimal information necessary for contact. That is all that is required, just enough information necessary to make contact. Now, once that contact is made with the victim, again, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi had it right, there is no obligation on the victim to participate in the services. It is strictly a voluntary thing, and consultation will be made with the various women's groups and stakeholders before these regulations are developed. I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that both the Women's Policy Office and the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women supported this bill, as was pointed out by my colleague, the Deputy Premier.

With respect to the final question that was raised by the Opposition House Leader, with respect to who qualifies. While it is an interesting question, it is not relevant to this particular amendment. Again, that information I imagine is available, and I certainly would not hesitate to try to get that information if there is anything specific there that I can get for the Opposition House Leader, but for the purpose of this amendment, then that information is not necessary.

So, I thank all the people who participated in the debate, and I look forward now, Mr. Speaker, of this bill going through second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

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

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

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 45)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, Order 10, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act. (Bill 46)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act". (Bill 46)

MS POTTLE: I move, seconded by the Minister of Labrador Affairs, that Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill that amends the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act to incorporate changes made to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement which were finalized in accordance with the agreement on the effective date, December 1, 2005.

This bill, entitled An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, has the following amendments: it has "the final list of Non-Beneficiaries who may continue to harvest in Labrador Inuit lands; the final Capital Transfer Payments Schedule; the final Repayment of Loan Amounts Schedule; and the final Implementation Payments Schedule."

Mr. Speaker, essentially, these changes are straightforward housekeeping items needed to keep the agreement up to date. The proposed updates and agreements are necessary, as required by the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. When the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act was passed by the House of Assembly on December 6, 2004, the effective date for the treaty had yet to be determined and the agreement had yet to be ratified by Parliament. Only later, after Parliament gave its approval, was it agreed that the effective date would be December 1, 2005. The agreement specified that the final versions of the provisions listed in this bill would be incorporated into the agreement as of its effective date. That is what this bill will do, incorporate into the agreement the necessary updated lists and schedules which have changed from the time of the agreement signing up to its effective date.

The amendments are also necessary in order for further amendments to the act to occur which are covered under a second bill that is before the House. That bill, entitled An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act No. 2, amends the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act to add Chapter 24 to the agreement respecting the Nunavik Inuit and Labrador Inuit overlap area. I will speak further, Mr. Speaker, to that particular bill shortly.

This bill that is before us is basically housekeeping items, but it is important that it get done. I do ask for the support of the members of this hon. House.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am very pleased to stand today and speak to Bill 46, which is An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act. Even though this is merely a housekeeping act, as the minister has said, dealing with things, actually, that have been in practice and have been taken care of for quite a period of time, the most important thing about this bill and about having this brought here to the House so that these changes go into the act, is that it once again reminds us of how historic a moment it was when the Inuit Land Claims Agreement was signed. I think many of us – I certainly did, as an individual – followed for many years the issues with regard to the Inuit Land Claims Agreement. I was lucky enough, I guess, unlike a lot of people in the Province to have ongoing connections with the LIA, as it was at that time, and with other Aboriginal groups in the Province and was aware of the issues.

I think this agreement was the first sign of our finally growing up as a Province in our relationship with Aboriginal peoples. That is why I think it is really significant that we have an Inuit woman, who is Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, bring this to the House today, and that representation from Nunatsiavut is present here in the House as well.

It gives me pride to be elected at this moment, and to take part in something else with regard to affirming the land claims agreement act. I will not speak to the details because, as the minister pointed out, they are basically housekeeping.

I have more that I want to say with regard to land claims, but I think I am going to leave it for the next bill, since the next bill is also dealing with the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. So rather than prolong and make my comments here, I am going to make them after the next act.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I do not wish to speak to the Bill 46. Just for the record, I have indicated to the Government House Leader that the Leader of the Opposition did wish to have a few words, but she was called out of the Chamber, and I understand there is going to be a Bill 47 that is going to be called soon as well. So, I guess she can reserve her comments that she has in regard to both bills, and she will make those comments when Bill 47 is called.

I just wanted, for the record, to say that she is interested in having some comments with respect to these bills.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs speaks now, she will close the debate on Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act.

I understand that the hon. minister is going to give way to the Leader of the Opposition.

The hon. the Government House Leader, I seek your guidance.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we have no problem if the Leader of the Opposition would like to speak, but I think we had just heard from the Opposition House Leader that those comments would be reserved for when we call the next bill, Bill 47, which we will be calling immediately after concluding this debate.

If the hon. the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs speaks now, she will close the debate on second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

MS POTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was my pleasure to get up and do this bill today. It is for the Labrador Inuit which, like the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi identified, I am a beneficiary to that claim, so it was a privilege to have done this, and I thank her for her support today.

With that, I close debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

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

When shall Bill 46 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 46)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, Order 11, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act No. 2. (Bill 47)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act No. 2, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act No. 2". (Bill 47)

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

MS POTTLE: I move, seconded by the Minister of Labrador Affairs that Bill 47, An Act to Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act No. 2, be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill that amends the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Act to add chapter twenty-four to the agreement respecting the Nunavik Inuit/Labrador Inuit Overlap Area.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Danny Pottle for being present here today. I know Danny was supposed to be up in Hopedale; their Assembly was supposed to be meeting this week, but because of a snowstorm, that was delayed. So I do appreciate Danny for being here.

In addition to amending the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act to incorporate the overlap agreement, two additional amendments are required to update the agreement. First, a revision of the Capital Transfer Payments Schedule, Schedule 19-A, to incorporate approximately an additional $33 million in federal compensation for Labrador Inuit to resolve their claims in offshore Quebec; and secondly, to repeal and substitute Schedule 2-A which is a map of the land claims agreement to revise the area excluded from cession and releases from under Part 2.11 of the agreement. The updated map will reflect the settlement of Labrador Inuit claims in offshore Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, this addition of a Chapter 24 to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement is effectively opening a new chapter in the ongoing story of the Inuit of Labrador and the continuing implementation of their land claim.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I am privileged and honoured to be directly involved in this part of history making for my people. An overlap agreement details how rights and benefits are shared by two or more Aboriginal groups who have laid claim to the same area. Once overlapping claims are resolved by Aboriginal groups, they can only come into effect if they are incorporated into the land claims agreement of each Aboriginal group.

In November 2005, Labrador Inuit and Nunavik Inuit concluded an overlap agreement that resolved their overlapping land claim in an area in Northern Labrador and offshore areas adjacent to Northern Labrador and Northern Quebec.

For the provisions of this overlap agreement to come into effect it must be incorporated into both the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement and the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement. The overlap agreement was incorporated into the Nunavik agreement in 2008. Amending the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement to include the overlap agreement is necessary in order for this historic agreement between Labrador Inuit and Nunavik Inuit to come into effect.

The amendment incorporates what has already been agreed to by both parties. Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat that this amendment has already been agreed to by both the Nunavik Inuit and the Labrador Inuit. This effectively resolves Nunavik Inuit land claims in Northern Labrador and Labrador Inuit claims in the offshore of Quebec. The amendments provide increased clarity and certainty for economic development of the area.

Through the overlap agreement, Labrador Inuit share some of their treaty rights with the Nunavik Inuit in the offshore area and in the Torngat National Park, while Labrador Inuit attain the right to harvest in the offshore portion of the Nunavik overlap area. The agreement sets out the terms for the harvesting, extracting of carving stones and archaeological resources between Labrador and Nunavik Inuit in the overlap area.

Once the federal government gives consent, it will provide approximately $33 million in capital transfer payments to the Nunatsiavut government for the settling of its claim to offshore Quebec. The funding will be made in annual payments for a period of eleven years.

An amendment to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement requires the consent of all three parties. The Nunatsiavut General Assembly approved the amendments on March 18, 2009. It is expected that once the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has obtained approval, the Government of Canada will seek approval.

Mr. Speaker, agreements on land claims define new and positive relationships between the governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada and Aboriginal governments. Land claims agreements are complicated and take significant time to complete. For example, the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement took nearly three decades to conclude, and as beneficiaries to the claim, you almost start to wonder: Would it ever happen? Because of dedication, hard work and determination by all parties involved, it did happen.

The Labrador Inuit and Nunavik Inuit concluded the overlap agreement between them in 2005. The Nunavik Inuit incorporated it into their overall land claims agreement in 2008. We are doing it in 2009, and as I already mentioned, the Nunatsiavut General Assembly approved the amendments this past March, and it is expected that the federal government should follow soon after. This is a reasonable amount of time to conclude something of this size and scope.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador have exercised careful consideration and due diligence in its action to amend the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, to resolve outstanding land claims in both the Labrador and Quebec offshore and Northern Labrador. I was a part of the transitional government, so to have the opportunity to be involved in the opening of a new chapter, Chapter 24 of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, is an extreme honour.

It was only this past week, Tuesday, December 1, that beneficiaries of the land claim celebrated its fourth year of the official formation of the Nunatsiavut Government. So I think it is symbolic that we get an opportunity to pass these bills on the week of their anniversary.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I graciously ask for the support from the members of this hon. House.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to have an opportunity to speak to Bill 47, and also to address certain clauses that were mentioned in Bill 46.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that these bills are indeed a step forward in a very positive direction for Nunatsiavut and the Inuit people of Northern Labrador. They demonstrate co-operation not only amongst themselves, but also with other Aboriginal groups. They demonstrate that they are capable of sharing in their resources with others so that their traditional way of life can continue in this modern world.

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity, as I said earlier in the House one day this week, to spend some time in Nunatsiavut lands this summer. I had the opportunity to be there with the Government of Nunatsiavut at the time but also with many of the Inuit people. I spent a week in Northern Labrador, and most of it in the Torngat Mountains area.

Mr. Speaker, I can only say that not only was it excitement for me to be there and to be learning from them, but the pride that they have in their land and the pride that they have in their people is also evident every single time that you spend time with them and in their communities. The one thing that I did learn there, because you learn something wherever you go – the one thing that I did learn there was the strong connection that they had with Nunavik. The fact that they were sharing with them in the joint development of the new national park for Canada; that they were sharing with them all the planning, all the development, all the cultural preservation that goes along with building a park of that magnitude. They were doing it, Mr. Speaker, with tremendous co-operation between each other. That was the thing that I learned from that partnership there.

What I have known for some time is the fact that these are two groups – and I am not surprised to see the amendment for the overlapping claim because they are groups that have traditionally worked together in Labrador for a very long time. They have shared fisheries jurisdictions, they have co-operated in partnership agreements in the fishing industry. They share partnership agreements for the development of quarry rock in Labrador, for benefit of both Nunavik and Nunatsiavut. Mr. Speaker, I think it is only fitting that this particular overlap area will give both of these individuals, not only historical rights in lands that they have occupied but it gives them a step forward to start managing jointly on behalf of the people they represent.

Mr. Speaker, today's amendment to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Act is another step forward for Nunatsiavut government who is a relatively new government. As most of you know, they only became a government in December of 2005 when they came into existence; then, they gained control over Inuit governing rights of their lands. In 2006, the first Nunatsiavut government held its general election and elected its first slate of members to government.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Jim Lyall, whom I happen to know, was elected as the President of the Nunatsiavut government at that time. He and his ministers have had no small task. They have had tremendous challenges and they have had tremendous opportunities. Mr. Speaker, I think that they have been very successful in capitalizing definitely on the opportunities that have been available to them, and I know that they will see more to come because they have built, not only within their Cabinet, but in the extremities of their departments and within their communities. They have built a very strong team of individuals, from their mayors and their councillors and their employees. Mr. Speaker, they are taking their position of leadership and leading forward for the people of Northern Labrador very, very seriously.

Mr. Speaker, I think it became most evident to all people in the Province is when they moved to put a ban on uranium mining in Northern Labrador. Even though there were a lot of people who felt, especially in the mining industry, that this may not have been the smartest move or the best move for the industry, but it was the best move for the people of Northern Labrador and for the Inuit people. I think that was when they really started to make their mark as a government known to everyone in this Province. That is, we have authority in our own lands and we are the people that govern and we are going to govern in a way that is respectful to the people that we represent but also brings them the greatest return. I think whether it takes three years to do the plans that they are working on or whether it takes twelve months, the reality is they recognize that they have the authority to govern, to lead, to make the decisions and they are doing just that. Mr. Speaker, whatever those decisions are at the end of the day, once the land use plans are all developed, I think they will, no doubt, be decisions that are in the best interest of the Aboriginal people of Northern Labrador, because they have people who are making decisions for them today that know and understand them better than anyone else.

Mr. Speaker, as I said it is a government that also faces challenges. One of those challenges I outlined here today in Question Period, when I talked about Jens Haven Memorial School in Nain and the fact that in 2006 there was documented facts in the school of only 300 children; 300 children started out in the classrooms of that school in September of 2006 and eight months later thirty-two of those children had dropped out of school.

Mr. Speaker, what else did the report say? It said that 70 per cent of those children in the classrooms of the school of Nain had been impacted in their lives by some form of trauma, tragedy, mostly in the form of suicides in the community.

From 2006 until today, Mr. Speaker, there is still no psychologist in this school; there is still no guidance counsellor in this school. There is a guidance counsellor brought into this school for one week out of every month, if possible, to look after 250 children that have statistics that are being outlined to the nature that these are.

Is that acceptable? I do not think so. Is it enough action on behalf of the government? It is no action on behalf of the government, and that is the problem. So how do you get a government like Nunatsiavut, who is changing the life for the people they represent, improving the life of the people they represent – when they deal with challenges like this, they need the supports of your government as well.

Mr. Speaker, in this school in Nain, I have been told by people in the community that the situation has not improved; in fact, it has probably worsened. That was a sad commentary that I listened to from leaders in that community in the last few days. To people who work with these children, to people who live in this community, things have not improved, that they have worsened, and I find out today that in three years the government has taken no action. They have not even followed up with their own report. They have not even looked at or evaluated what the current situation is, three years later.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, when I asked the minister question today, his comments was that this report was only submitted to his department in an advocacy effort to try and lobby for more money. What kind of a comment is that? I do not care if they submitted it to you to lobby for money or if they submitted it to you for some other reason. Once you learned of the information that was in this report, you were required to act. You were required to act.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, you did not have to look very far to find out that this report for the school in Nain, in Nunatsiavut territory, Mr. Speaker –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Point of order, Mr. Speaker, regarding relevance of the debate.

We are discussing the Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act No. 2, and although the member is speaking about issues that affect an Inuit community, I certainly question the relevance to the land claims act and the legislation that we are debating, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader to that point of order?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I think all here have an appreciation of relevance, and obviously, of course, the Chair determines what is or is not relevant. We have two bills here which deal with Nunatsiavut. Self government by the Inuit. Self government, control of one's lands, control of one's educational system and control of one's infrastructure is all encompassed under that issue. If we are going to have a government stand up and say: You can only talk about –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is reluctant to interrupt, but I ask the hon. member if we could, by agreement, stop the clock until the point of order is made, it being 5:31p.m. – 5:30 p.m. on a regular sitting of the day. So we will agree to stop the clock until the point of order is made before the House is adjourned, by agreement, or else we are back here at 7 o'clock?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Or we can do it on Monday, Your Honour, if that is preferred?

MR. SPEAKER: I seek guidance.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would, certainly with the support of the House here, like to continue to debate in second reading on Bill 47, in particular, because we do have the Speaker from Nunatsiavut government who is observing the debate, and I think it is a very important bill for the Inuit people. For that reason, it would be my preference if we could stop the clock and continue until we conclude the second reading of Bill 47.

MR. SPEAKER: That would certainly have to be by unanimous agreement of the House.

Is there unanimous agreement to stop the clock and continue in second reading of Bill 47? I seek guidance.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

We are agreeable to going beyond 5:30 p.m. for the point of finishing the point of order that was raised by the Government House Leader. We are not prepared to consent to extending beyond 5:30 p.m. for the purpose of finishing second reading. This could go on for another forty-eight minutes.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: And the government knew that, by the way.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair needs to know if we are going to stop the clock to finish with the point of order, or if we are going to return at 7 o'clock tonight.

The Chair seeks guidance. Are we going to stop with the point of order, or is the hon. member saying that we are going to continue with second reading of Bill 47? If we are, then we will be back at 7 o'clock.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we can certainly stop the clock to deal with the point of order. Although this was not previously planned, as we discussed today's sitting we felt we would be able to cover this legislation in the time that was allotted.

Mr. Speaker, because we do have the Speaker from the Nunatsiavut government here and this is a very important piece of legislation for the Inuit people, and as the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs indicated this is also the week of the anniversary of the land claims, we would certainly like to be able to show the respect to the Speaker that this is a day that we conclude the debate on second reading.

I think this side of the House would like to come back at 7:00 to continue that debate, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A final comment from the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Just for the record here, so there is no misunderstanding by anyone, particularly the honoured guest who is listening to this. We meet every morning; the Government House Leader, myself and the Leader of the NDP. We decide what is going to be carried and heard here today.

At no point in time was I ever informed that there was anybody in particular listening to this, that it was an historic agreement, that there would be anybody in the galleries. The Government House Leader had the option at any time of asking that – we could have started today with this. We did not need to start these two bills, Bill 46 and Bill 47, at 5:05 p.m. This could have been done any time today, so now to suggest that we are not being co-operative is unfair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Final argument: We either return at 7 o'clock or we adjourn the House immediately.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I also want to comment on the Opposition House Leader's comments right then because the honoured guest who is observing this debate was also informed, through the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, that these were the last two bills that we would be discussing today.

As we plan for the House we certainly cannot be precise sometimes as to the timing that we have. We certainly felt we would get through this matter of business. This person is here. I did not know until the House was actually sitting today that the Speaker of Nunatsiavut was here. It is not something I was aware of earlier this morning.

Mr. Speaker, as I had said, out of respect, I would like to continue second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If there is no agreement to stop the clock, this House will now recess until 7:00 p.m.


December 3, 2009        HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS         Vol.  XLVI   No. 34A


The House resumed sitting at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader responding to a point of order.

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

Just to take up where we left off before the supper break. We are dealing here with - the issue of relevance has been raised by the Government House Leader on a point of order. Now as we are all aware in this House, the recognized authority by Your Honour and this Chair for some time has been Marleau and Montpetit. I have, of course, had a chance now to refresh my memory of what it exactly said.

There are two references, basically, and I will not belabour the point. There are two references. One, being on page 530, and the other reference being on page 780. We also, of course, have in our own Standing Orders, we have a reference to the issue of relevance. That would be in Standing Order 48.(2). In that particular one, as I understand the process here, is that we normally refer to our own Standing Orders first before we go elsewhere to seek guidance. That subsection (2) says, "The Speaker or the Chairperson, after having called the attention of the House, or of the Committee, to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance or needless repetition, may direct him or her to discontinue his or her speech, and if the Member continues to speak, the Speaker may name him or her, or, if in Committee, the Chairperson shall report him or her to the House."

Now, that is the only thing I could find in our Standing Orders with respect to the issue of relevance. It is pretty general, and in that section it talks about two things. Relevance and repetition. That is the same kind of commentary we get when we look at Marleau and Montpetit. They talk about both of it being in unison. You can be called out of order if you get repetitive, you can be called out of order if what you are saying is not relevant to the topic being discussed. That is the gist of where relevance does or does not fit in a debate.

The other thing is, all of the authorities that we referred to here, and the ones that I have referred to, talk about in Committee of the Whole. Particularly when you look at page 780, it talks about relevance in Committee of the Whole. I would submit that is where it has its greatest impact. For example, we in this House, whether it be here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador or in the House of Commons, there has been a wide latitude given, first and foremost, if you are debating a money bill, we call it, anything that has to do with taxation at virtually every stage. We are not dealing here today with a strictly money bill, but no doubt there is involved in these pieces of legislation – they talk about the expenditures of money. No question about it.

The other thing is relevance gets really talked about when you talk about committee. Everybody here has been pretty good at complying with that. If you are in second reading, you are given broader latitude than you would be if you are in committee. In fact, I was not even aware until I just reread it that it says, if you are in committee, clause 1 and clause 2 might give you a bit more latitude than when you get into the other clauses. We have always tried to live by that here, and I think everybody on both sides has been pretty respectful of that, that when we are in committee we keep it relevant, we keep it on topic.

In this case today, the Leader of the Opposition, or the Opposition, is responding. It is in second reading. We are not in committee where the really, really strict application of relevancy gets applied. We are in second reading, and her comments here are related to the bill, the Government of Nunatsiavut. Now, I agree, she should keep it relevant to that government entity. She should keep it relevant to all the things that that bill says. She is not talking here about –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude his point of order.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I will.

What she is saying here is she is talking about the bill, Bill 47. She is not talking about highways down in Corner Brook. She is not talking about expenditures of anything else. She is not talking about –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to confine his thoughts to the point of order.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I would think the opportunity to respond to the point of order, unless there is a time limit on it –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to confine his thoughts to the point of order and to wrap up his point of order. The Speaker is after hearing from both sides. I think the Speaker is ready to make a rule.

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

I guess if you have heard enough, there is no point in me saying anything further and I will take my chair.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The member raised a point of relevance, the Opposition House Leader. Relevance like repetition is sometimes very hard to define. When you look at exactly the sections that the hon. the Opposition House Leader referred to, the rule of relevance, I refer him to page 527. The rule of relevance "…is used to keep a member from straying from the question before the House or Committee. It is not always possible to judge the relevance (or the repetition) of a Member's remarks until he or she has made some progress in or completed his or her remarks." Then go on to page 530, it says, "A just regard to the privileges and dignity of Parliament demands that its time should not be wasted in idle and fruitless discussion; and consequently every member, who addresses the house, should endeavour to confine himself…" - or herself "…as closely as possible to the question under consideration."

The Chair has looked at Bill 47, and as the hon. the Opposition House Leader agrees, it is not a money bill, although there is a fair amount of money that is transferred there in the schedule. In fact, well over $100 million, some of it as late as just two days ago. When you look at the other parts of the act, it talks about harvesting wildlife, it talks about archaeological resources, it talks about land claims and it talks about the land claims maps and gives a general direction of where the land claims go, Bill 47.

I ask members, while we are into second reading we talk about the general spirit of the bill. I ask hon. members as they deliver their thoughts here in the House, that they would confine their thoughts to the bill as much as possible and try to keep and confine their remarks strictly to the Bill 47.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you for the opportunity to finally get to conclude my comments as it relates to Bill 47.

Mr. Speaker, this bill does indeed talk about the rights of Nunatsiavut overlapping rights with Nunavik. It also talks about, Mr. Speaker, areas concerning land claims, areas concerning the fishery; of our harvesting techniques that occur both on the water, on the land, and in all areas where there is certain shared species of habitat.

Mr. Speaker, before I finished concluding before supper break, I was talking indeed about Nunatsiavut. Since they came into power in 2005, their new government being elected in 2006, and the tremendous challenges they have as a region in dealing with many issues within the Nunatsiavut land claim area.

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. members opposite do not want to hear what those issues are, what those challenges are. They do not want to hear about the challenges like I raised today regarding the school in Nain, but the reality is this, and that is that the Nunatsiavut government does have to deal with those issues, whether you want to hear them or not, because they are a part of their land claim, they are the people they represent, they are the future endeavours of what they are taking on as a government.

Mr. Speaker, when they signed on to these land claim agreements, when the Inuit Land Claims Agreement was signed, it was signed with the full knowledge of all the Inuit people who were accepting the responsibility to lead a path forward for their people, a path that would provide for greater prosperity, and a path that would provide for a lot less challenges for the generations to come. In order to do that, Mr. Speaker, they also signed on to an agreement with government that says that this government would co-operate in seeing that agenda come to realization.

Part of that agenda, Mr. Speaker, is providing for all aspects of life for the Inuit people in Northern Labrador. Whether it be in protecting their fish stocks, whether it be in preserving their historical and cultural attachments to the land, whether it be in fostering a better education system for their children, Mr. Speaker, or whether it be in improving the transportation challenges that exist in that area, whether it means providing them with more cost-effective services than they have today, it is all a part of it.

Mr. Speaker, the government has a responsibility to help them foster developments in all those areas, and that is why I am somewhat disturbed when I hear of incidents like we dealt with today in this House where you have reports outlining alarming statistics and alarming challenges in the education system in one of the communities in Nunatsiavut territory that make up the land claim region such as Nain. Those go un-dealt with and go unaddressed, and that is not acceptable, Mr. Speaker. What the Inuit people are doing is signing on now to overlapping agreements with Nunavik, and I think that when signing onto that agreement, they are signing on to take responsibility on both sides to do something, just like when they signed the original agreement, which we are amending today, with the government. They were signing on to a partnership; a partnership that would ensure that these types of issues get dealt with. They are not being dealt with, Mr. Speaker.

In the time that I have even raised this issue today in the House of Assembly, I have had numbers of calls from that community. I know now that it is not being dealt with. I did not have the measurable numbers, and I still do not have them. Maybe at some point government will have enough interest to go in to this school in this Nunatsiavut territory in their area of claim and go back and look at whether any progress has been made.

Mr. Speaker, that was only one challenge that they deal with. One challenge that they deal with - there are many others. For example, in the past year, the Inuit fisherpeople in Northern Labrador decided to get involved in the turbot fishery. When they got their boats geared up and they were ready to go out and participate in this fishery, half the quota for the Northern region had been given away - had been given away to other fishers in other jurisdictions. That was a very significant challenge because they spent a lot of money getting ready for that fishery. I met with their Minister of Fisheries in their government; I met with a lot of the fishermen in the North Coast that were affected by this because there was an overlapping fishery with areas in my own district.

Mr. Speaker, that was one example of another challenge that they had to deal with. A challenge where half their quota was given away and they were not aware of it because no one was monitoring what was happening between the provincial and federal governments that manage the jurisdiction for fisheries in this Province. That is exactly what happened. Nobody monitored it. Nobody had any idea what was going on until all of these people had spent their money, they got about ten days on the water and they had to shut down the fishery because the quotas were not there. That is just one example, Mr. Speaker.

Let me give you another example. It is a great example, actually, because it is one that keeps coming up in Northern Labrador, in Nunatsiavut territory, where they are all too willing to sign on to agreements to co-manage resources with other jurisdictions. Mr. Speaker, this is the issue of transportation in Northern Labrador, where they have been asking for the government to cost-share to help build a road – a survey, a study to look at the feasibility of building a road between the communities of Makkovik and Rigolet and Postville into North West River. They were prepared to put up $80,000 of their own money, and no one on the other side of the House has been prepared to invest $1 into doing this feasibility study for the North Coast communities.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, to date they have still not gotten any real response from government even if this is on the radar in the next one, two years; no sense whatsoever. All they have been told at this stage is it is not on. We are not spending the money. We are not giving it to you. That is the only response. No open doors, no open discussion; end of it, case closed.

Mr. Speaker, Nunatsiavut is not only challenged in terms of the infrastructure, but they are challenged in terms of geography because of where they are located: in the great, powerful Northern region of our Province, that have contributed so much to this Province over the years.

Mr. Speaker, they still suffer in isolation. They suffer in isolation dealing every day with the challenges of living and working in the North. Mr. Speaker, you would think that when they come forward for the first time in their lives, when they finally have this sense of self-reliance and independence. When they are finally charting their own course in terms of where they are going to take the people of Northern Labrador over the next decade and they make a request to government to look at a feasibility study to connect roads between our communities, and they are not even granted their $200,000 or $300,000 –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - to actually do the feasibility study, Mr. Speaker. Not even given the money to do the feasibility study.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The truth hurts. The truth really, really hurts, Mr. Speaker. Whenever they start hearing the truth they get right upset. The first time, Mr. Speaker, I ever heard –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, it is like –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - facing a pack of wolves some days, Mr. Speaker. It is just like facing a pack of wolves some days.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the nerve has been hit over there because with two ministers in the Cabinet, two ministers in the Cabinet with about five files on their desks between the two of them, costing the taxpayers of the Province hundreds of thousands of dollars, and yet, Mr. Speaker, between the two of them they cannot deliver a feasibility study for the communities on the North Coast. Now, how shameful is that? If anybody should be standing up apologizing, it should be the two members opposite, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very important issue and it is important to a lot of people in that area, and they deserve to have their concerns addressed. They deserve to have someone speak up, Mr. Speaker, and have their concerns addressed. I make no apologies for coming into this House of Assembly and raising the issues that have been brought to my attention by the people of Northern Labrador. I will never make any apologies for it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this, the Nunatsiavut Government, Mr. Speaker, is trying to pave a better way for the people of Northern Labrador, but they cannot do it alone, and they know that. That is why many of their leaders and their mayors whom I have heard many times on the radio, many of them I have spoken to them personally, they have called me on the phone, Mr. Speaker, who really feel that government has failed them in not funding this feasibility study –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - for the construction of roads between communities in their district. Mr. Speaker, they really feel that, at a time when they have a minister – two ministers from Labrador in the Cabinet - that their concerns should be given some priority and that those kinds of issues should be addressed. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that is not happening. That is not happening.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, let me talk about another issue, actually one that came up at a public session that I was at, raised by a member of the Nunatsiavut government, I say, and it had to do with the Lower Churchill project. Do you know what the individual said? We would not be supporting – I cannot say this is the view of the government, because I do not know it to be the case, but I can tell you that it was the view of this individual in a public room that I was in when they stood up and they said, Mr. Speaker: Unless there is going to be hydro power put to the Northern communities of Labrador, our people will not support it. That was what they said.

Mr. Speaker, we have not heard any statements from this government that talks about bringing connected power to Northern Labrador, just like there is no talk about bringing connected power to Southern Labrador. Both regions, Mr. Speaker, both regions who deserve to have it, who deserves to have it, I say.

Mr. Speaker, do you know people in Northern Labrador today, people in Northern Labrador today are paying commercial hydro rates. In the Nunatsiavut territory, those businesses are paying –

MR. HICKEY: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Can you protect me from the Member for Lake Melville, Mr. Speaker? I am not sure if they brought supper in tonight or not. I am getting a little bit afraid here on my feet and I ask for your protection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has been recognized to speak and the hon. member has an hour to speak, the same as the minister had when she introduced the bill. Every member in the house can take twenty minutes on second reading. We will stay with you until 10 o'clock tonight, and we will come back again on Monday to hear others.

So I ask members if they would be kind enough to keep their thoughts together, stand and be heard and let everybody on the Island and Labrador know their thoughts on this particular piece of legislation.

Right now we are listening to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, she has another thirty-six minutes left, and I ask people for their co-operation in allowing her to make her speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say I was just talking about the hydro power issue in Northern Labrador. Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns that continue to be raised is the rate that is being paid by commercial customers in that region. In fact, Mr. Speaker, a business right now in the minister's hometown, in Hopedale, if they are into any kind of a business activity where they have a hydro connection, they are paying over 18 cents a kilowatt hour today for power. Mr. Speaker, is that fair? Is that fair to leave customers, commercial customers, in two regions of our Province, in Northern Labrador and Southern Labrador, in the Nunatsiavut claim area, in the area where we have a new Inuit government making a fresh start for its people, having to pay hydro rates, commercial rates, that are three times more than their neighbouring people in Happy Valley-Goose Bay?

Where is the fairness in that, Mr. Speaker? There isn't any. There isn't any. These are the issues that need to be addressed. These are issues, Mr. Speaker, that the government opposite has been ignoring. In six years, they have not delivered. They have not delivered on any of these issues, on looking at a feasibility study for road connections in the North Coast of Labrador, in looking at reducing the price of electricity for commercial customers, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: In fact, Mr. Speaker, they have not done anything to address either of those issues, which are very critical issues in this region of Labrador. They are critical, Mr. Speaker, because of their geography, because they need to be able to overcome the challenges that are costing them more money than everyone else in the Province, the challenges that continue to isolate them from everyone else. These are initiatives that have to be undertaken by the government opposite, Mr. Speaker, and it has just not been happening.

Mr. Speaker, they do not like to hear about it. They do not like to hear it, but the reality is these things do not get made up, they come from people. They come from people who live in those communities. People who are not afraid to speak their mind and bring their issues forward. People who feel they deserve to have better, and so they should have better.

So it is not just the social problems in many of these communities that are going un-dealt with and neglected by government, as I outlined in the case of the education system in Nain today. There are other issues, Mr. Speaker, in terms of infrastructure, like I have just outlined, that are going unaddressed as well, and un-invested in by government, Mr. Speaker. We already know that Aboriginal communities in the country have some of the hugest demands around housing. We already know that, Mr. Speaker. Statistics show us that.

Mr. Speaker, the Northern region of Labrador was lucky enough this year to get some extra money under a federal government agreement to start building some new houses. In fact, in Nain – I will reference Nain again – there were seven new houses built this year, and there have been new houses built in some of the other communities. It came through a new federal initiative, Mr. Speaker. A new federal initiative from their Harper cousins in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, who brought down this budget to put these millions of dollars into all off-reserve housing in Labrador, because there is some of it going into my own district for another specific program – a little bit different, but going into this program in Northern Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, it does not change the fact that 20 per cent of the people in most Inuit regions throughout the country live in crowded homes; that is the reality. Another significant challenge that the Inuit government is dealing with, Mr. Speaker; significant challenge. I dealt with cases, myself, as the minister knows - cases that were right in her own district - of housing last year where people did not have a place to live, Mr. Speaker, where every day I got e-mails from an individual who did not have housing.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to talk about that. I do not want to divert from the bill, but what I will say, Mr. Speaker, is this. What I will say is that there is still a lot of overcrowding in many of the communities, but we have not seen a strategy from the government opposite to deal with any of those issues in a very legitimate way, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hear the minister over there for Aboriginal Affairs shouting in her seat. So maybe the next time she gets a question she will stand on her feet and answer it in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS JONES: When I am finished she is going to have twenty full minutes to get up and to speak for as long as she wants. I think she gets an hour even when she closes the bill. She can speak as long as she wants, say whatever she feels like saying, Mr. Speaker, but the reality is this. Every single issue that I have put on the floor of this House today came directly from people in your district minister. Every single issue –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - came from people in your district, Mr. Speaker. In fact, even from the time I left this House this evening until I came back I had more e-mails. Mr. Speaker, there is –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members if they would not turn this debate into a personal debate between two people, one on each opposite side of the House here.

I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, while we may not agree with what the member is saying, members will have a chance to put forward their own views when they are recognized by the Chair.

I ask members for their co-operation and allow the hon. member to complete her statement.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that we are here talking about such an important bill today and highlighting some of the challenges that exist in the Northern region of the Province in the Nunatsiavut government area and the members opposite have been barking ever since I have been standing on my feet because they do not want to listen to what the challenges are and the issues are. If they did want to listen, Mr. Speaker, they would have acted on reports like the one they had in their office since 2006 and failed to address it.

Mr. Speaker, in these communities they have a new way forward. I have said that before. That new way forward is coming with the Nunatsiavut government; a government that is more self-reliant, that has greater understanding than anyone else in this Province of what the challenges and the issues are that face their people. Mr. Speaker, that way forward includes partnership, not just with Nunavik as we are discussing today around fisheries and wildlife and mammal rights and national parks, but it also includes a partnership with government. A partnership, Mr. Speaker, in which both sides come together to make sure that issues are addressed: issues in their education system; issues in their communities; issues with regard to transportation; issues with regard to health care; issues with regard to hydro costs in their communities. All of these things are very important if they are going to have a successful way forward. All of these issues, Mr. Speaker, are partly the responsibility of the members opposite.

Now, Mr. Speaker, they have been over there and they have not been saying too much on the bill before I got up. I expect you are going to hear a lot when I sit down. So I am kind of looking forward to that. Mr. Speaker, I will say this much, if there is one thing that has happened out of this debate that is historic is the fact that we might have gotten the attention of a few ministers on the other side of the House. If there is one thing that has come out of this debate that is somewhat historic, it might have been that we woke up a few people over there and they are starting to realize that information does not fall in your lap. It comes to you because people have concerns and people call you and they express their concerns, and they ask for help, and they ask for support.

Mr. Speaker, their concerns have gone unaddressed, and maybe when the minister stands up in her closing remarks on this bill she will tell us that they are going to pay for the feasibility study to build the highway between the communities of Rigolet and Postville and Makkovik into Northwest River. Maybe when she stands up on her feet that is the announcement that she will make for the people of her district tonight, or maybe she will stand on her feet tonight and say to them that we are going to reduce the commercial rates for businesses in Northern Labrador because it is a shame and a crime that you have to pay three times more than your neighbours in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Maybe that is the announcement she is going to make tonight. Maybe we can look forward to two good announcements as she closes debate on this bill. Maybe she will make a third announcement, Mr. Speaker. Maybe she will tell us that finally they have a Grade 4 teacher to go into the school in Nain, after looking at a report from 2006 that tells you the trouble that Grade 4 children were having in that school. Maybe she will get up and make that announcement. Maybe she will get up and announce that they have a full team of strategies, a full set of initiatives that they are prepared to roll out. Maybe they are going to put a psychologist, finally, in the school in Nain to deal with all the issues that have been raised in a report that was sent to her government three years ago. Maybe they are going to put a guidance counsellor in that school. Maybe that is what she is going to announce tonight.

Mr. Speaker, when she gets up to close her bill - show some action on behalf of your government. Show some action on some of these issues and make those announcements for the people of Northern Labrador. Maybe that is what we will hear from her, or maybe we will hear a whole lot about nothing again. A whole lot of desk thumping, Mr. Speaker, about the great things that we have done, but what about all the things that are left undone, minister? What about all of the things that are left undone in that region? All the things, Mr. Speaker, that these people are asking for today to have addressed.

Mr. Speaker, we will look forward to hearing what the minister has to say, but in closing I want to say that we will certainly be supporting Bill 47. I think it shows tremendous initiative and co-operation on behalf of the leadership in Northern Labrador. I think it certainly shows that this is a government that is clearly moving forward with the interests of their own people. They are protecting their co-operative agreements, they are protecting the resource and they are fostering it for the benefit of the people in the region. I think, Mr. Speaker, if they had a hands up from the government opposite to address some of these other issues, that they could clearly be on a path to prosperity in a lot shorter time frame than it is going to take when you have to fight a government that is not prepared to invest in those kinds of initiatives.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down and let the minister make all of the announcements that she is prepared to make tonight on all of these initiatives, those great announcements for her district, for the people of Nunatsiavut, for the people on the night that we have an historic agreement being amended in the House of Assembly. Well, maybe, Mr. Speaker, it is the best time that she could get to make those great announcements for the people of Northern Labrador so that they do not have to come back to another meeting or another rally and start asking for those things all over again in another year or two years, or in some cases three years from now, and not have them addressed.

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

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

I am quite pleased to be able to stand and speak to Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act No. 2.

This is a very important thing that we are doing here tonight because what we are doing, what the government and those of us in the House of Assembly are doing tonight is not ratifying, it is not making legitimate, but it is recognizing the agreement that has been reached by two significant groups of peoples: the Nunavik Inuit and the Labrador Inuit. Peoples, who, for generations, shared a land without boundaries; there were no boundaries for these people.

They also shared that land not just with each other but also with the Innu - the Labrador Innu, the Quebec Montagnais. Peoples who for generations before Europeans put foot on the land, shared that land. However, with the entrance of Europeans into their life, boundaries were put in place and that changed things for them in many ways. For many years, again for decades and decades, these two groups were under governments that came from the European domination. Their way of life was affected. Everything about their life was affected. Their culture was affected. The use of their language was affected.

They have reached a moment and we have reached a moment where finally land claims agreements have been put in place - a land claim agreement for the Labrador Inuit. Right now, we know we also have the Nunatsiavut government which is four years old. This is so significant that it is absolutely important that we recognize that significance here in this House. That is why this bill is so important.

What is so significant is that these two groups of people, within the context of that system which was foreign to them in which they have had to become use to and they have had to work within, that they were able to do what was necessary in doing their land claims and that was come to an agreement on this overlap area.

We have a lot to learn from them in the agreement that they came to. We still cannot come to agreements across Canada in the provinces, and I will not go into details on that one. We have got our own struggles as a province with trying to work with other provinces. Yet, here we have these two groups of peoples who have been able to come to agreements on such significant things that when you read, in one way you say this is housekeeping - and it is, it is doing something legal that needs to be done. Even though they are independent groups, even though the Labrador Inuit have Nunatsiavut, they still fit into our system, so their agreement has to come into a piece of legislation which is part of the Newfoundland government and the Newfoundland and Labrador legislation. They accept that and they are doing it.

I saw it as housekeeping. We went through a briefing on this with representatives from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs - and I thank the minister for that briefing; I think it was important that we did it. You would look at and think, well, it is just housekeeping, but it is significant to read section 24.2 in the bill because section 24.2 – and I would encourage people who are interested, 24.2 talks about all the agreements –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS MICHAEL: Section 24.2, 24.3, 24.4 and 24.5, and so on, are very important, but I am particularly interested in 24.2, because you have several clauses there, seven clauses actually, in which they lay out the details of how they are co-operating with each other in the overlap area in the area of harvesting, which is such an important area in their lives. So I was really pleased that I took the time to really read in detail everything that is written there.

The other thing that is important is that they have done this, recognizing that there is, in Labrador, another Aboriginal group that is going to enter into this picture, because the Labrador Innu do not have their land claims agreement settled yet, and when they do, they are going to have to enter into the picture with both of these groups with regard to overlap areas.

The two groups who have come to agreement, the Nunavik Inuit and the Labrador Inuit, they have set a model for how to do it. So, personally, I am very confident that when the Labrador Innu enter this picture and this whole document has to be reopened and there has to be changes again made in their agreements, I have absolute certainty that they will do it with the same spirit of co-operation that the two Inuit groups did it.

I am not going to speak longer, Mr. Speaker. I just do want to make the point of how much I think we have to learn from the Nunavik Inuit and the Labrador Inuit. I want to thank them for doing the work they have done within the context of the system that is a political system that was not part of their history. The fact that they have done it is a sign to us of their goodwill.

I am very happy to be able to be part of this House of Assembly at this time as we put into the legislation of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador the agreement that was made between the Nunavik Inuit and the Labrador Inuit.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has been a little over two years coming into this position. I said when I came: I ran, I campaigned and I was never doing it for the money. I was never doing it for the job; I had a job. I did it because I cared about my district; I cared about the people. I want to try to make a change and I have been bringing those issues forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: It is not my personality to be argumentative. I have always been attentive here in the House. Tonight, I was extremely insulted as an Aboriginal Inuit woman. This was supposed to have been a very historic moment for us. We have the Speaker of the Nunatsiavut government here who came to listen, to watch the passing of the bill. I spoke with First Minister Tony – I did not speak, I left a message and he called back. I spoke with First Minister Tony Andersen - very excited that this was going forward. To put the negative spin on it that went on, I tell you I am very disappointed – very, very disappointed.

A number of things have happened since I have come into this position that I can just prove that this government is extremely supportive of the residents of the North Coast of Labrador. We had, in the winter trails, two new groomers since I have been here - over $300,000 in trail improvements.

We had the recognition that Northern Labrador is northern and we have colder climates. Instead of getting the same rate as we were before, we were given the same rate as other residents in the Province with regards to the home heat rebate. Now, we get not $200 like everyone else, we get $500 because this government recognized we have the additional cost.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: The foster parents' rates – they were always the same, regardless if you were in St. John's, if you were in Clarenville, or if you were Nain, Labrador. If you were a foster parent, you got the same rate. That no longer happens. There is recognition now for Coastal Labrador that it is more expensive to be a foster parent, and this government recognized it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: I am from one of the northern communities that I represent. I live there. My family is still there. My children are there. Because I am at the Cabinet table, I am able to bring issues forward. I am able to give it from a personal perspective of what it is like for some residents to live in our communities. This government is listening. This government is listening!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: We heard a lot about electricity and the cost of it. Yes, we recognized that. I pay the commercial rates with my businesses. Natural Resources had a couple of programs in last year's budget, the alternative energy study looking at different ways to deliver electricity into a community versus diesel; that is ongoing. We had energy efficiency projects where we went in and did home audits. That happened in the northern community in my district, and it happened in Port Hope Simpson on the South Coast of Labrador. This government is fair. This government is fair and listens and understands; there are some differences there.

We have Environment and Conservation doing an environmental assessment of the old American site up in Hopedale. On top of that, they also – the community had been waiting for over ten years to get an environmental assessment done on another site where the old school was at. This government listened. This government went in and did it, and the report should be out soon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: This government gave money to the women's shelter in Rigolet. The women in Rigolet have lobbied long and hard to put a women's shelter in their community. This government listened. This government gave them money to help them proceed there. This government is listening, and I know it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: This government approved a project for Nain. They call it the Trouser Lake project – relocate their water supply because the community is growing and they need more land development. This government approved that project and this was in the paper just this fall and they are hoping to come in the coming summer. We gave them $2 million that came from the Off-Reserve Aboriginal Housing Trust - went to the Nunatsiavut government to help deal with some of the housing issues.

This government knows there is a difference when it comes to Northern Labrador. There are some other challenges. We know we cannot meet them all, but we are working on it. It is a work in progress.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: This government, not like the last government, is not going to allow our freight to be shipped up to Cartwright, Labrador - to be shipped by marine from Cartwright. We already had to fight with the Liberal government before to get that stopped because it was adding so much to the bottom cost of what it would cost to put groceries on our shelves. This government listened. We are not putting freight back into Cartwright because that is not what the people on the North Coast want!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: This is not what this bill is about. This is not what the bill is about. This bill is about adding Chapter 24 to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. This is a historic day for the Inuit people of Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: I am extremely disappointed that this turned negative. I am extremely disappointed it turned negative. There was a time and a place for all that debate, not during bringing this bill in. This was a proud moment - a moment that the Labrador Inuit were waiting for. I am sure we are going to get the support of the House, but I have to tell you I am extremely disappointed that it did go as negative and it was so confrontational. It was totally insulting - totally insulting.

I must say that the Leader of the NDP was very professional, very supportive.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: From all of the Inuit people in Labrador, I do thank you for your support for not turning this into a negative debate. This is a historic moment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: As an Inuit woman and a beneficiary to this land claims agreement, it is a great honour and a pleasure to be here tonight to be able to put this bill before the House, so I do thank you for your support.

With that, I will close debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has closed the debate on second reading of Bill 47.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 47 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

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

When shall Bill 47 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act No. 2", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 47)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, with that I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, that the House do now adjourn.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

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

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