December 10, 2009            HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS        Vol. XLVI   No. 38


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today the House welcomes the following members' statements: the hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port; the hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the hon. the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis; the hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley; and the hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

The hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to congratulate Gerald Morgan, Principal of Stephenville Primary School for being recognized with the Victor May Distinguished Administrator Award for his outstanding work in the school, school district and Province this past October.

Mr. Speaker, Gerald has been principal at Stephenville Primary School for the past five years and is well known for his commitment and dedication to the students. Mr. Morgan has been involved in many initiatives that enhance the learning experience of all students. Under his leadership the school received environmental awards, strengthened its commitment to literacy and implemented the Families and Schools Together program, and, Mr. Speaker, the list could go on. Our community and, indeed, our children are very fortunate to have an educator of Mr. Morgan's calibre.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of this hon. House of Assembly to join with me in congratulating Gerald Morgan for receiving the Victor May Distinguished Administrator Award.

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.

It gives me great pleasure today to stand in the House and recognize a constituent, Chris Brookes. Chris is an author, storyteller and independent radio producer whose documentary features have won over forty international awards, including the Peabody Award and the Prix Italia, and have been broadcast around the world.

I want to congratulate him particularly Hark! a documentary on the acoustic world of Elizabethan England. It was winner of the 2009 Prix Marulic, the "best of festival" Grand Award at the 2009 International Radio Festival of New York, and the Gold World Medal for Best Sound. In October, Hark! opened the 2009 Prix Europa radio screenings.

Chris has taught documentary storytelling at festivals and workshops across North America and Europe. As a sound artist, his audio art has been exhibited at international festivals and released on CD. He was formerly artistic director of the Mummers Troupe Theatre of Newfoundland and pioneered the use of theatre as a vehicle for community development. He has also produced radio drama for CBC.

He has been inducted to the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Hall of Fame, holds an honorary doctorate from Memorial University of Newfoundland, and is a recipient of the Order of Canada. Brookes currently directs his production company Battery Radio, fittingly, at the bottom of the cliff where Marconi received the first trans-Atlantic wireless message.

I ask the members of the House to join me today in congratulating Chris Brookes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Pouch Cove Lions Club and all its members on their efforts during the past year.

At a convention in October, they were honoured by receiving the award as the Best Club for 2008-2009 under the leadership of Lion Kevin Connors, who also received the President Excellence Award and the President Excellence Award from Lions International.

Lion Tracey Granter received the Secretary award from Lions International. One of their newest members, Stephen Hewlin, received the Rookie of the Year Award. All these awards are due to the joint effort of all members of the Pouch Cove Lions Club.

Mr. Speaker, the Pouch Cove Lions Club is an excellent organization in the District of Cape St. Francis. Last year, there were thirty-five individuals and groups that benefited from their excellent work and determination. The Pouch Cove Lions Club raised in excess of $32,000. They raised this funding by having everything from a booth at the Regatta, bingos, card games, sock hops, selling cold plates and so on. It is easy to see why they were selected the Best Lions Club.

I ask all hon. members in this House to join with me in congratulating the Pouch Cove Lions Club and wishing them all the best in their future endeavours.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, it is my esteemed pleasure to rise in this hon. House today and pay tribute to the organizers of two special events in my district this past summer. Both the towns of Hampden and Reidville have significant milestones in the history of their respective communities. The Town of Reidville celebrated its fortieth anniversary and the Town of Hampton celebrated its fiftieth. Both had Come Home Year celebrations to celebrate the event.

The immense success of both these events can be attributable to the persistent and dedicated efforts of the committees charged with the task of organizing the events. Hats off to Joan Parsons, Chair of the Hampton Come Home Year celebrations and Cliff Reid, Chair of the Reidville Come Home Year committee. Both committees were staffed with strong members and a community network of volunteers.

Mr. Speaker, Reidville's event ran from July 10 to July 15 and Hampton's celebration took place from July 16 to July 19. The strong sense of community pride was quite apparent in both communities. Both had special projects that included an outstanding video production on the heritage of their respective communities.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating both the communities of Hampton and Reidville on the outstanding success of their Come Home Year celebrations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand in the House of Assembly today to recognize the efforts of students and staff at James Cooke Memorial School in Cooke's Harbour for standing up to bullying.

The international Stand Up Against Bullying Day was started after two senior students in Nova Scotia stood up for a freshman student who was being bullied for wearing a pink shirt. The thirty-four students and four teachers of James Cooke Memorial are one of 1,000 schools, workplaces and organizations participating and represent more than 500,000 people who have taken the pledge.

The students and staff participated in a number of events to bring awareness to this growing problem. The primary class acted out scenes to identify bullying and drew posters. The intermediate students held discussions and the senior students watched videos and participated in a question and answer session. The student council also designed a bullying box in which incidents of bullying were submitted anonymously.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in commending the students and staff of James Cooke Memorial School for taking a stand against bullying and extend to them the very best wishes for continued success in any future projects they may take on.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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 rise today to acknowledge December 10 as International Human Rights Day. Each year this day is set aside in recognition of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. The focus of this year's Human Rights is non-discrimination and we are all encouraged to "Embrace Diversity, End Discrimination".

Mr. Speaker, prosperous, peaceful and open societies embrace diversity and aim to end discrimination. As we continue to open our arms to people from around the world and share our prosperity and peace, we must continue to embrace the principle of non-discrimination. Nobody, regardless of their age, race, religion, political opinion, marital or family status, sex, sexual orientation, disability or background should face discrimination. Indeed, embracing non-discrimination is fundamental to our success as a people.

Mr. Speaker, last year on this date, the provincial government announced that consultations would take place as part of a government's goal to revise the Human Rights Code of Newfoundland and Labrador, a fundamental document for our Province. To encourage and stimulate debate on this topic the Department of Justice prepared a consultation document which was available to each resident of the Province. This consultation process included consultation sessions throughout the Province, and also encouraged individuals and groups to prepare and make submissions via mail and the Internet.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the many organizations that made representation during the consultation process, along with the general public, and indeed the Members of the House of Assembly. The Department of Justice is still in the process of reviewing the submissions received; however, I am confident that suggestions from the people of the Province will no doubt have a great influence on this new code. I look forward to presenting a revised Human Rights Code to the people of the Province in this Legislature during the next session.

Today, as we mark International Human Rights Day, it is important to keep in mind the words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "All humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights." This is a truly powerful statement, one which should be echoed throughout our world, and indeed one that we should embrace and live by each and every day.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. We, too, wish to pay tribute and recognition to the International Human Rights Day, and we also embrace diversity and wish to end discrimination, as the theme is for this year.

The minister alluded at length in his statement to the Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Code here in the Province, and we also look forward to seeing a revised Human Rights Code. We are all aware, of course, and I am sure the minister is, of the Auditor General's report of 2008 where he pointed out some very serious deficiencies in the Human Rights Commission that we currently have. There were backlogs; there were high staff turnovers and so on due to resource shortages.

We, the Opposition, in fact, made it an official presentation during the consultation process, as recommended. As recommended by the Auditor General, we also recommended that the Human Rights Commission should be made an independent office of the House of Assembly as opposed to, which it currently is, an arm of Department of Justice. We feel there is certainly a conflict of interest there in having the Department of Justice not being at arm's-length because the government is indeed involved in 50 per cent of the human rights cases in this Province. We feel it is more appropriate that they be at arm's-length and not as they are currently structured.

Thank you.

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

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

I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement, and I applaud him for the declaration that he has made today.

Human rights are very important to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, not just for ourselves but on an international level as well. We have had an ongoing evolution of recognition of human rights in our Province. It has been an interesting one - everything from the issues that happened around denominational education to the inclusion of gays and lesbians in the code. There have been many things that have happened in our Province that have been motivated by human rights.

The story though, as the minister noted, is not over. We are continually growing in our understanding of human rights. I, too, am interested in seeing the legislation that will come forth with regard to the revision of the Human Rights Code that is ongoing at the moment. The consultations took place last year, and I was hoping that we might see the new legislation at this time, so now I guess we look forward to the spring sitting.

I do hope that the minister will ensure that the revised code includes all the improvements brought forward by participants in the consultations. I know that I took part in the consultation here in St. John's, and I did not hear anything at that consultation that I would not think should be in or covered by our legislation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to ask all members, their families and the general public to come and celebrate this year's Christmas Lights Across Canada Ceremony. The event takes place this evening, beginning at 6:15 p.m. in the main lobby of the East Block of Confederation Building.

This ceremony, Mr. Speaker, has without doubt become an annual family tradition that will see some 60,000 lights illuminate Confederation Hill. This year our display will once again include six cut outs depicting Christmas scenes, and thirteen trees decorated with white lights, symbolizing our thirteen provinces and territories. The main tree on the steps of Confederation Building is approximately twenty-five feet tall, and was cut from the Ocean Pond area.

Once again this year, our tree contains all LED energy saving Christmas lights, and in fact, all our lights in this year's display are energy efficient bulbs. This is the twenty-third year Newfoundland and Labrador has participated in this national event.

Mr. Speaker, we are ahead of the game this year, holding our ceremony a couple of days before the national ceremony in Ottawa, which this year is Saturday, December 12, but that certainly does not dim the sense of pride we feel as we join with other provinces and territories across this beautiful country in officially marking the start of the holiday season.

This year it is my pleasure to be joined by the hon. Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Resources and her grandchildren, who will turn on the switch that will illuminate thousands of lights up and down the Parkway here in St. John's. We will also hear from the Zara Vocal Group and the Royal Newfoundland Regiment Band.

Each year Christmas Lights Across Canada brings a smile to the faces of young and old alike, and I invite everyone to join us in this annual holiday event.

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 his statement. It is good to see that a twenty-three-year-old tradition is continuing this evening here on the steps of the Confederation Building.

It is also worth noting, like the minister said, that all the lights that we see that are going to be lit up this evening are energy saving, so it shows that we are headed the right way, economically-friendly and what have you.

I know the weather is not very good out here today. I know the weather is not the best, but in case the minister does get in trouble I know he is in very capable hands, the Deputy Minister and her grandchildren are going to be there to help to flick that switch.

I want to congratulate everybody involved with this wonderful project. I hope that it is a good evening, everybody gets out to enjoy it, and as we do let's not forget those who are less fortunate and give thanks for all the good blessings that we do have.

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, or thank Santa Claus, whichever. This is such a feel-good thing, what can one say? We all enjoy the Christmas season and all the holidays that happen during this season as well. Hanukah will be coming up tomorrow - I think the eleventh, this year, is Hanukah - and we have other celebrations that go on. I think everybody do join together in celebrating everybody's celebrations at this time. I know some people do not like calling it the holiday season, but it really is. It is a major holiday season. For those of us who celebrate Christmas, it certainly is a major one.

I, too, was delighted to see, as the years have done over, the last three or four years, the increased use of the LED lights. I think it is just right that people see the government buildings using the LED because, I think, it puts it in their mind to realize they are beautiful and they will make the change over as well.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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, a house fire in Labrador claimed the lives of five people, two of whom were children and one of whom was under the care of Child Welfare. After this incident, government did complete an internal investigation. We requested a copy of this report through the Access To Information and we did receive it, but for the most part a lot of the document was blacked out. In fact, Mr. Speaker, even a number of the recommendations in the document were blacked out. There were eight recommendations that we were aware of that involved improving training, clinical supervision and risk management. Some of the other recommendations, we do not know what they are.

I ask the minister: Has there been any action to implement the recommendations that were contained in that report, and are you prepared to share with us those recommendations that were blacked out?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I can say that the report that was received based on the fire in Labrador was taken very seriously by Health and Community Services and now by the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. I can also say that any information that was blacked out was according to the guidelines of the legislation that guides how we black out information or what we black out, and a lot of it may have been about personal information of the people who are involved in this particular review.

Mr. Speaker, what I can say is that based on those eight recommendations, we are moving forward with every area of those recommendations to make sure that we set up a system that protects the children of Newfoundland and Labrador and no recommendations will be ignored or not followed upon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I should let the minister know that we have appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner, simply because oftentimes we know that there are private and personal information that are blacked out but recommendations in a document are there to improve the system itself and to make it work better for the people who use it.

So I ask the minister, if she is prepared to provide to us a full copy of the recommendations that was in that report?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, based on the legislation, but more importantly in this particular case, based on the fact that some of the recommendations may contain personal information or names of private individuals who may not wish to have that made public, that I have to respect the law and I would not want to do anything to embarrass the families any further or to release information right now that under the law is protected. If there are any appeals made, and the Privacy Commissioner determines that that information should be released, we will do it, but I will not take it upon myself right now to violate the privacy of any individual. Especially, Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about people right now who have been severely and seriously affected by a very tragic event in Labrador, and there are still people grieving, Mr. Speaker. I hope they have been notified by the Official Opposition today that questions were coming. I hope they knew that it was being in the media last night, because earlier this summer when they made issues public, I know that that family had not been notified.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the minister is all that concerned, I can certainly inform her that I have had many discussions with the family.

Mr. Speaker, we know that Labrador has unique challenges involving geography, culture, workload and staffing that often requires different approaches in dealing with issues. In this case in Labrador, it was alleged that reports were made but not followed up on within the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services.

I ask the minister today: Has there been any improvements made in the system, especially in Labrador, to ensure that there is follow-up on all of these child welfare issues?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, there is so much I can say about this particular topic right now that to have a few seconds to address it just does not give it justice.

Mr. Speaker, this government, over the last couple of years, invested $25 million in Child, Youth and Family Services and with that there were 200 new positions, but, Mr. Speaker, despite that investment, we did not feel that that service was moving ahead in the way that we felt was most effective. As a result of that, Mr. Speaker, we have created the new Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. That certainly shows that this government takes this area of our work very seriously and we are preparing to move forward to make the improvements that are necessary.

Mr. Speaker, just last week I had the opportunity to meet with the Deputy Minister of Health and Social Development for the Nunatsiavut government. I was accompanied by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. We talked about the unique issues in Coastal Labrador regarding child protection issues. I also had the opportunity this summer, Mr. Speaker, to meet with the staff in the Nain office, in the Hopedale office, and in the Makkovik office as well. I also met with the staff in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Cartwright and Forteau.

Mr. Speaker –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.

MS BURKE: Well, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, what I would like to say is that this government is keenly interested in the areas, particularly in Labrador, and we plan to continue to address these areas until we get the progress that is absolutely (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Kathleen Kufeldt, the former Chair of Child Protection at Memorial University and a child welfare expert, has stated that when these types of incidents occur within the system an independent investigation is warranted and should be initiated by government. However, Mr. Speaker, in this case until we took the issue ourselves as an Opposition to the Child and Youth Advocate Office there was no such investigation planned by government.

I ask the minister: Why was there not an independent investigation into this case launched by your department and your government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, there was an internal review, as the member had indicated, that was done by Child, Youth and Family Services. It is also my understanding that this had been referred to the Child and Youth Advocate at one point in time and was deemed that it would not be investigated by the Child and Youth Advocate. Now, Mr. Speaker, that referral and that decision was made outside of government. Then I understand that the hon. member made representation to the Child and Youth Advocate that this case be opened and there was a statement made that the advocate's office would review this.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the advocate's office is arm's-length from the MHAs and from the House of Assembly. They report to us but we do not go down or we should not be down telling them what to do or what to investigate, but, in saying that, I also received correspondence from the present advocate who indicated that he felt that the appropriate decision was made initially not to review this case but because the advocate who is now no longer in that position made that decision, that he would honour that decision. So, Mr. Speaker, the decision of the advocate's office should be independent of us. If we are not making that referral, which we did not in this case but it was indicated that it had been referred, they looked at their files and they felt they did not need (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is the minister telling me today that the Child Advocate is investigating a case of a death of a child who was a ward of the state in this Province only because he feels an obligation to do it, not because he thinks it is necessary, should be done and should be a practice that happens within government and within this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the answer is - I guess the question is not correct because the case we are talking about is not a child who was a ward of the director of Child Protection. This was a child who was with their birth parent. The child died in a fire. The fire was investigated and the fire in that house was accidental. The Child and Youth Advocate's Office at one point took the referral and decided that they did not have a role. They do that independent. They do not report back to me. The present advocate reviewed the case again - and I cannot speak for the advocate, only what was given to me - he felt that the review was unnecessary but would continue based on the actions of the previous advocate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is unfortunate that you have to drag an investigation out of the Child and Youth Advocate in this Province when a child dies. I just cannot believe what I am hearing here today.

Mr. Speaker, the Turner report was supposed to overhaul the way in which child welfare and support services functioned in this Province and address some of the systemic problems that exist. The Department of Child, Youth and Family Services was set up to put more focus on the welfare of children in the Province, and unfortunately there are still some very serious problems that still exist.

I ask the minister today: What are we learning? Are we learning any lessons from all of these incidents and the impact that this has had on people's lives in our Province? If we are, why is there still recurring incidents?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of change in this particular field in Newfoundland and Labrador. I will refer back to the clinical service report done by Susan Abell. She indicated in that report – and I have great respect for her as an expert. She said that a series of quick fixes will not work; it will take three to five years. She is right, to do a systems change takes a long time.

One of the fundamental changes we have to make, Mr. Speaker, is our legislation. We have to review the legislation; we have to amend it. One thing that is fundamentally flawed with the legislation, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that it does not focus on the best interests of the child.

Mr. Speaker, the previous government received a report in 1997, and on page 59 of that report it outlined what the focus should be in the legislation. In not one place did it say it should be in the best interests of the child. Do you know what? You took it, you brought it in and now we are left with the problems.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in July, government issued a tender for the provision of ferry services on six coastal service routes in the Province. With the outline specs of the tender that was issued by government, it would require that the vessels be fifteen years of age or younger. It was impossible to supply this contract unless new vessels were being built. However, Mr. Speaker, there was no stipulation in the contract to say if new vessels were to be built, they would be built at shipyards in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask the Premier today: Why was this clause excluded from the tender documents when your government had made a commitment that ferries would be built in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the question from the member opposite, these were six contracted ferry services which we put out a tender for, and in the response to that tender that came back, that it did call for – we were hoping that there would be some boats around that would fit the specs of those tenders, that they could be used. It came back that these would have to be newly constructed ferries, and of course, that put another wrinkle into the mix. So looking at the tenders, looking at the money that came in, we decided to let those tenders elapse and to go back to the drawing board.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister confirm that new tenders for these six vessels in the Province will stipulate a requirement that if new vessels are to be built, that they would be built in shipyards in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my previous answer, these were contracted ferry services put out in a tender, these were services, not construction. These were put out; I believe a number of companies tendered for them. Again, looking at what came back nowhere in those contracts was anything with regard to construction of ferries in Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not see the point in asking the question again, obviously there is not going to be a requirement to have those ferries built in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, this government also closed down thirteen highway depots in the Province in 2005. It was done as a cost-saving measure to government. NAPE, the union representing these affected workers has grieved the decision, took the government to court and they won their case. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they won their case twice. Now government is appealing it for the third time.

I ask the minister today: As opposed to continuing appealing these decisions in the courts, wasting taxpayers' money and time, why is government not prepared to reopen those depots and put these workers back to work?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Decisions are made, and I guess any policy, and when those decisions are made, it is based on what we believe as a government is the best course of action. Of course, when those decisions are made, they are not always agreed upon. In the interim, I suppose, parties can come back and ask that they reviewed, whether it is through the courts or through grievances or whatever.

That is where that process is now, Mr. Speaker. It is in the appropriate place. We, as a government, are representing the interests of the Province, and we will await the outcome of that particular appeal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is quite obvious that government's decision in the Province and to lay these workers off was the wrong decision. The courts have ruled twice in favour of the workers. Why the government continues to appeal it, we have no understanding of that.

I ask the minister today: How much has your government spent so far in court and legal action on this particular file, and how much has the savings been since 2005 when you made the decision to close those depots?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member opposite, as I have said before, we work in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. During the course of operating in that manner, there are expenses that we incur, but again, we feel that we have to go down this path in order to clarify this situation and the decision; that is where we stand right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, the tourism industry has been rationalized into four destination marketing organizations down from twenty-seven regional tourism associations. In their inceptions, these DMOs have a mandate to increase economic development in the four regions through tourism. Yet, Mr. Speaker, there is a concern that some of them are immensely large in size and also concerned that the goals of the regional tourism growth market and product development are being compromised.

I would ask the minister: Since her department recently changed the mandate of DMOs towards exclusive marketing of tourism, the position of marketing co-ordinator for the Northern Peninsula and Southern Labrador was eliminated, and today I wonder how this contributes to the goal of economic development?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: I would like to thank the hon. member for my first question in the House of Assembly. Thank you very much; I appreciate it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, we have four DMOs set up in the Province now; we are about to set up a fifth one. Last year, we set one up in Central Newfoundland. Mr. Speaker, when we talk about marketing in this Province, just a point for the House of Assembly: Do you know how many awards we have won in marketing in this Province? We have not won one, we have not won ten, and we have not won twenty - fifty-one awards.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It seems like the hon. minister is off to a good start; he did not answer my question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DEAN: Probably it is possible to go from fifty-one awards to 101 if we put the proper staffing out there. It was very disturbing, Mr. Speaker, to discover that the Western DMO will no longer be employing regional staff people in these rural areas to work with the businesses in our region -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DEAN: The individual who held this was previously employed with the Viking Trail Association, an organization that previously received its core funding to attract tourists to L'Anse aux Meadows and we look at the numbers that visit Gros Morne and we look at the difference between what visits L'Anse aux Meadows.

I ask the minister: Without local liaisons working with the in excess of 600 businesses, communities and organizations that depend on the tourism for revenue, how will the DMOs adequately market their products?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, it is very important in the tourism industry that we be consistent. We have taken this Province a long, long way. Actually, the DMOs came about because of a 2004 report that we went out, consulted with the industry, Mr. Speaker, and at the time there was twenty-eight different organizations out there promoting this Province. Many of them still exist by the way. This is a way to put a professional team in place so that they can assist all areas of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman opposite just mentioned L'Anse aux Meadows, and I happened to be down there recently as the hon. member probably knows. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you as I was driving over the $4 million worth of new pavement to go to L'Anse aux Meadows; this government does an awful lot for tourism in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Yeah, Mr. Minister, you never got an award for that visit, but anyway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest again that it is not reasonable to decrease the representation of our regions. You know, quite frankly, when I look in my districts, as many districts throughout the Province possibly in rural Newfoundland, the numbers continue to go and the liaisons and support staff continue to decrease.

I would ask the minister, again: Would he consider to increasing the numbers in tourism and in support staff and so on rather than decreasing the numbers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, we have taken a marketing budget in this Province that now peaks at $13 million in this Province. We are constantly concerned. Last year we had a recession; a world recession and our numbers in this Province went up, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: So, I would certainly take any advice the hon. member would like to pass along but we are all about moving this Province forward when it comes to tourism. We have the record to show for it. We have increased numbers. This industry now in this Province, Mr. Speaker, is an $850 million industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, not only is it an $850 million industry, it employs 13,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, that is not in places like St. John's. That is in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, last year government announced a pilot project for twenty-four hour snow clearing in the Province and would evaluate the effect of such a program.

I ask the minister: What were the outcomes of the pilot project, and will the program happen again this year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last year, indeed, we did put into place a pilot project with regard to twenty-four hour snow clearing in specific spots throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. In doing so, Mr. Speaker, we had some preliminary analysis but looked to extend it for another year to make sure that we have the information that we need in order to make the informed decisions that have to be, to see what we can do with twenty-four hour service in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, last year many community leaders voiced their concern that their areas were not included in the twenty-four hour program.

I ask the minister: Will the twenty-four hour snow clearing program be expanded this year to include other areas of the Province, and if so, what areas will be included?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the question from the member opposite, it is a pilot project. It is not a program, and it is a pilot because obviously we are looking to what direction we can go in. In order to do that, as I pointed out in my previous response, we need to have the specific information to make the informed decision so that we can move forward with perhaps the extension on that pilot.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, the pilot project was only in effect from Monday to Friday. Many felt that this was inadequate because we all know there is a lot of traffic on our highways on the weekends.

I ask the minister: Will the pilot project this year include weekends?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: In actual fact, it was, I believe, five nights per week, Sunday through Thursday. Again, we are looking at it as a pilot. We are looking at the time that we are doing it, we are looking at the traffic flows, and we are looking at the storm conditions, and so on and so forth. We are putting all that information together. Again, we need a second year to ensure that the decisions that we make are the right decisions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General noted, as of March 2008 there were 1.3 million tires in stockpile in Placentia and Bull Arm. He also noted that there were safety concerns around the 110,000 tires that were at Bull Arm. The tires were not being stored in accordance with the Office of the Fire Commissioner.

I ask the minister: What is the update on the Bull Arm site? What actions have been taken, and are there any tires remaining at this site as we speak?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we take the Auditor General's report very seriously, and as a result, we have had all of the tires removed at the Bull Arm site. They are all gone, and all the tires that are currently at the Placentia site are being stored in order with all the fire codes that are necessary. So they are all gone, we are happy to report.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Health and Community Services. There is a serious shortage in the Province, as we know, of home support workers who provide personal care in people's homes. Recently, at the town hall meeting that I held in my district, where people expressed their concerns about home care, many issues were raised. Mr. Speaker, home care recipients and workers both said that a major reason why there is a shortage of home support workers is the low wages and lack of benefits in this very demanding field of work.

So I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: Will the spring budget address this injustice by raising the wages and benefits of home support workers to the same level of personal care attendants in long-term care facilities?

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in Budget 2009 the provincial government earmarked $35 million to improve services and enhance supports across the Province to strengthen long-term care and community support services. Of that, Mr. Speaker, $16.5 million was to increase home support hourly subsidy rates; $8 million, Mr. Speaker, was utilized to address home support program growth; $1.5 million to increase the personal care home subsidy; and $1.1 million to begin implementation of the new assessment tool, Mr. Speaker. We have seen the benefits of that assessment tool, and we have seen the savings that have come about.

The member opposite implies that we are not doing anything about home care. Home care, Mr. Speaker, has been a concern for this government and last year's budget indicates, with a $35 million investment, how much we are contributing to the same.

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 will point out that I did not imply what the minister just said. I asked a very specific question: Will the wages and benefits of those doing the personal care in homes be brought up to the same level of the personal care attendants in long-term care facilities? He did answer that question. I made no implication that the government was doing nothing about home care.

Mr. Speaker, at the town hall home support workers said they need more formal training to acquire the skills to do their jobs safely, and especially to serve clients with complex needs. The minister said last week he saw the video, and he heard that if he watched it.

Mr. Speaker, the training programs cost several thousand dollars and only a few workers have been able to access funding to help with this cost.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Now that the Province has taken over federal job training programs, will the Minister of Health work with the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment to ensure that all home support workers have access to high-quality, affordable training programs?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last year's budget, the $16.5 million which was annualized to $24.6 million increased the home support hourly subsidy rates as follows: $7 million, Mr. Speaker, for a 50-cent increase on March 1, 2009; $7.6 million for a 71-cent increase on July 1, 2009; and another 50-cent increase on January 1, 2010.

In relation to the training, Mr. Speaker, of the home support workers I am certainly willing to discuss the same with my colleague in Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and anything we can do, Mr. Speaker, to improve the services offered to the seniors in our Province, the persons with disabilities, we are certainly willing to consider and we will continue to address these needs.

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 thank the minister for the last part of his answer because if having the control over - now the training dollars are here in the Province and we need to match training with our labour market. If we ever had a labour market need, it is the training of the home support workers.

Mr. Speaker, workers and people needing home support also express frustration that there are no legislated standards for home care, which leaves government off the hook for adequately monitoring home care provided through the private agencies.

I ask the minister again, Mr. Speaker: Would he put in place regulations for home care including standards of care in education, and provide the resources for monitoring and enforcement so that these standards take care of the health and safety of both the workers and recipients of home care?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP raised the issue - last week I think it was - about the long-term care strategy. A long-term care strategy, Mr. Speaker, is something that will address all of the issues involving support services in the community in terms of long-term care, community care and home care workers. What we have to do, Mr. Speaker, as a government is look to our aging demographic and how we can best deal with people like our seniors and treat them with the respect they deserve in their elder years.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we have to look at our home care workers, and part of the long-term care strategy, we will look at all aspects of it. We will look at independent living, Mr. Speaker. We will look at community programming. We will look at home care.

One of the issues I expect that will arise in this strategy will be the need for standards to govern how care is provided to seniors, persons with disabilities and, Mr. Speaker, all those who can benefit from the kinds of monies that this government is putting into these programs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

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

It is my pleasure today to table in this House the Public Accounts for the Province for the year ended March 31, 2009.

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of members of the House and for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who are watching, the Public Accounts are prepared by the Comptroller General of Finance pursuant to section 59 of the Financial Administration Act. Volumes 1 and 2 of the Public Accounts are audited by the Auditor General.

These are the actual accounts prepared by the government's accountant; they differ from the budget which the Minister of Finance gives every year. These are the actual financial statements prepared at the end of the year and audited by the Auditor General.

The Public Accounts are required to be tabled in the House of Assembly by the Minister of Finance before February 1 of the following year. The Public Accounts comprise of two volumes. They are in three books, but there are basically two volumes. The most important one, Mr. Speaker, is the consolidated summary financial statements. These are the audited financial statements of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and public sector entities combined, so that is the departments of government, but also all public sector entities that are out there.

I always remember my former critic, the previous Member for Grand Falls-Windsor, Anna Thistle, who used to say these statements meant everything was in, and she was right. They present the consolidated assets and liabilities, the revenues and expenses, the annual surplus or deficit prepared on what is called an accrual basis in accordance with the accounting standards that are established for governments by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. A comparison to actual or accrual budget figures made are available.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting to note that the surplus for that year, at the end of March 31, 2009, that fiscal year, the surplus was $2.4 billion, which I believe is the highest ever in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador. The net debt at that date was actually down to around $8 billion from the just under $12 billion net debt when this government came into office.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to hon. members and also to the population that there is a financial statement, discussion and analysis section which precedes the consolidated summary financial statements in Volume I, and this section assists the reader by providing more meaningful information about the Province's financial position and the financial results through narrative and through trends and ratio analysis. I think that all members of the House and all our residents of the Province would be well served by taking a look at this analysis.

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has audited the financial statements presented in Volumes 1 and 2 of the Public Accounts and his short form report provides an unqualified, or what is called a clean opinion on the Public Accounts. The Auditor General, of course, will issue a separate report, a separate narrative report on the financial statements in due course. The Comptroller General of Finance is provided an opportunity to read the Auditor General's report in draft form and to comment at that time.

I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to present for all members of the House the Public Accounts for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the financial statements of Crown corporations, boards and authorities for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act. (Bill 58)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

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

I stand today with another petition on behalf of some 2,000 people throughout this Province with regard to what we know as gravel pit camping.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to read into the record again the full prayer of the petition, but what those people are asking for is that government consult with them to work out a long-term solution to problems with the practices that government finds acceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I referenced a case in time yesterday with regard to Wolf Pond in the Fox Marsh area. That is a prime example of what all those people are asking for. I did not realize it, but I called the lady whom I attended many meetings with over a period of two-and-a-half to three years. From the time they were notified that they had to move from that site - there were people who were raised there with their own parents, and now their children grew up there and grandchildren. They were there for some forty-five to fifty years. All around a lovely little pond, and they were told that they were in a forest management area. There was nobody in the forest. There was nobody even in a brush on the side of the pond. Anyway, they had to move. They wanted some action taken to come to a successful conclusion so that they could still camp the way they did for most of their lives.

What happened, Mr. Speaker, for some two-and-a-half to three years? We met with officials within the department, and there were some very rough meetings, let me assure you. At the end of the day, and I think, to be honest with you, I think we went through two ministers while we were bringing forth their case. Today I spoke with the lady who is in charge, just before lunch, and she tells me that the site that was put there, with the approval of government – now do not get me wrong, government just did not do it out of the goodness of their heart. They have to pay a certain amount of money each year for five years for the little road that they put in, and they have to pay a fee of $185 a year. There are some sixty people there. They have three little subdivisions in this site that was created for them. They are on the same pond they were asked to get away from, but just a little distance away from it. Those people are very pleased that they are there.

All we are asking for in those petitions - the petition that I present today is from people from St. John's, CBS, Foxtrap, Plum Point, all over this Island who are asking for the same thing, that officials sit down with them and talk this through, and hopefully they can come to a conclusion where those people will be able to continue on with a tradition that they have had for many years, a standard of recreation. Many of them do complain about maybe the odd person who will come into a site where they are, who is not keeping that site environmentally friendly. They do not want that either, Mr. Speaker, but I do not think you should throw everybody out for the sake of one or two. Clean up the mess that is there, sit down with those people and consult with them so that a solution can be found, similar to what was found in Wolf Pond in the Fox Marsh area.

Anyone can go there, the media can go there and see this wonderful site. The government even went in and put a few outdoor toilets in there for them. They are putting more in because they raised their money. They are looking after that site. All we are asking, Mr. Speaker, through those petitions, is that government will do the same for those throughout the Province.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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 Implement Labour Mobility. (Bill 55)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 55, An Act To Implement Labour Mobility be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Implement Labour Mobility". (Bill 55)

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, that Bill 55, An Act To Implement Labour Mobility be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly very pleased to stand here today and have a few moments to talk about the Labour Mobility Bill that is before us. I had the pleasure this morning of meeting with members of the media, and my staff took an opportunity to brief the media as well as hon. members opposite on the specifics of this bill. So I am certainly pleased to take a few moments today to have a few words about this.

For the information of the House, Mr. Speaker, negotiations and discussions have been ongoing for the past two years with respect to labour mobility and, in particular, to the amendments to the federal-provincial-territorial agreement on international trade. My department, today, is bringing forth the amendments for Chapter Seven, which is the chapter that deals with the labour mobility. The intent is to ensure that a worker, who is granted certification in a regulated occupation in one jurisdiction throughout the country, would be granted certification to practice their occupation in any other jurisdiction in Canada.

In other words, if you are certified to practice in a particular occupation in Alberta or British Columbia or Saskatchewan, then you would be able to practice the same occupation right here in our own Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The expectation with this bill, Mr. Speaker, is that you will be able to do that without being required to have to undergo any further training or experience, or any particular examination or assessment unless an exemption is granted for a particular occupation.

This move, Mr. Speaker, and the introduction of this bill today is certainly consistent with what has taken place across other jurisdictions in Canada. Labour mobility is a key element for us, Mr. Speaker, of labour market efficiency. We recognize that the labour mobility contributes to sustaining economic growth, to fostering innovation, and increasing productivity, as well as enhancing our Province's competitiveness in what is increasingly becoming a knowledge-based global economy. As well, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the changes we are talking about in this bill today will be a benefit to workers who will see a more consistent approach to assessment and to certification.

Through ongoing dialogue, Mr. Speaker, as well as the sharing of best practices, workers in regulated occupations will encounter fewer obstacles with the passing of this legislation. They will encounter fewer obstacles to full labour mobility and they will have access to tools and to information that will facilitate a co-ordination and consistency across jurisdictions across Canada. To ensure regulatory bodies in Newfoundland and Labrador meet the obligations under this chapter we are moving forward today with this particular bill, An Act To Implement Labour Mobility to be introduced and passed here in the House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would like, Mr. Speaker, to take a couple of moments just to touch on a few of the elements of the bill that we are debating here today, to make sure, as best we can, in a general sense at least, that members of the House and those who may be watching through the broadcast have a decent idea at least, of what we are talking about here.

The Act To Implement Labour Mobility, Mr. Speaker, requires all regulatory bodies to comply with "Chapter Seven of the Agreement on Internal Trade." Some of the key elements, I will just touch on. First of all, it requires regulatory bodies to seek government approval for workers from other jurisdictions that they want exempted from this particular chapter, this particular bill. It also requires that regulatory bodies to apply Chapter Seven when certifying workers from another province. It also ensures that the elements of this bill will apply to existing and future legislation. It will ensure that a legal proceeding cannot be brought against the Province as a result of a disagreement from Chapter Seven, but rather it provides for a dispute resolution mechanism under Chapter Seventeen.

Also, Mr. Speaker, it provides authority to make regulations should this be necessary in the future, regulations governing the actual implementation of this bill. Clearly outlined as well is the implementation date and it will commence on June 30, 2010 to allow for changes to legislation, changes to policies, changes to by-laws and to coincide with the date that has been agreed upon by ministers from across the country. It was felt, Mr. Speaker, as that date was agreed upon, that certainly that date would be the earliest date by which we could actually move to full implementation and allow for any particular disputes to be brought forward and assessed and considered.

Mr. Speaker, there are number of points that I would like brought forward here today with respect to the process and timelines respecting this particular bill coming out of the agreement on internal trade but I am going to leave some of those comments to my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary for Education, to bring forward when he has a few moments shortly to speak.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to highlight for the House that this bill represents a very positive step for us, positive step for government and a positive step for the Province. Certainly, in trying to move forward and ensure we have a qualified workforce available to us here as the demand for skilled trade workers and the demand for health care professionals, in particular, continues to grow, Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we have access to a qualified workforce and many of the professionals, as I have said already, Mr. Speaker, would come from areas like the heath care sector.

As well, Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to make mention that one of the things this does is it makes easier for many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who may be working in particular occupations today, who are working away in other parts of the country, it makes it easier for them to find a way now to come back home with full labour mobility.

I have had discussions, Mr. Speaker, with any number of individuals with whom this particular bill would be of benefit. I think of one good friend of mine, Mr. Speaker, from my district in the Community of St. Lawrence who has a daughter working as a massage therapist on the West Coast of the country. Massage therapy, Mr. Speaker, is one of the occupations included in this particular bill. When this bill is passed, Mr. Speaker, it will provide full mobility so someone practising as a massage therapist in British Columbia or Alberta will now be able to move to another province without having to go through some of the bureaucracy and the red tape that may have existed previously prior to the suggestion of this bill, Mr. Speaker.

So, I am certainly very pleased to highlight that for people. This is indeed a very, very positive step for our Province. It is one, Mr. Speaker, that certainly falls in line with many of the other supports that we have been bringing forward and been introducing to try and help grow our workforce and to help make sure that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is prepared and ready for the challenges that we face and for the growing economy and the many projects on the horizon and the many needs that we are going to face here on education and training, Mr. Speaker. We see great opportunities here for this bill to certainly provide further support to us in that particular area.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, a couple of points that were raised this morning by the media when I had a chance to chat with them. One question raised was whether or not this opened the door for foreign workers to gain easier access to jobs in the Province, Mr. Speaker. For clarification, I want to say that the bill does not open up access for foreign workers other than if a foreign worker becomes certified in one of the occupations covered under this chapter, if a worker becomes certified in another province, Mr. Speaker, in one of the occupations in this bill then that worker will have full access and full labour mobility, the same as any other resident of Canada would have, but it is only if they become certified in an occupation in another province – or I should say, Mr. Speaker, in a province of Canada. It is not because they are a foreign worker, Mr. Speaker, it would be because they were registered with an occupation covered under the labour mobility act.

One of the other questions raised this morning, Mr. Speaker, was with reference to a government having some dealings now with setting the standards for particular occupations and whether, in fact, we would now become a part of setting the standards and setting the bar for occupations that would be covered under this particular bill. Mr. Speaker, there may have been a little bit of confusion there, but this particular piece of legislation does not require or state or stipulate that government will now become in that particular process; we will not. Regulatory bodies that govern things like massage therapy, or like nursing, or doctors and chiropractors, they have regulatory bodies that set their standards, Mr. Speaker, and they will continue to do that.

What this legislation does is allows that a person who becomes certified, as a chiropractor, for example, in Newfoundland and Labrador, will be able to move and practise in another part of the country, without, as I said a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, without having to go through any particular upgrading, or any particular new training, or any particular new administrative kinds of activities that often tends, Mr. Speaker, to delay their ability to gain employment and to move elsewhere. Often, Mr. Speaker, we have heard of situations where people just become so frustrated with the kinds of things they have to do and the hoops they have to jump through, that they just give up on it.

Mr. Speaker, this does not engage us in the regulatory side of things with respect to occupations and how they govern their members. What it does, though, it allows for labour mobility across the country.

Mr. Speaker, the other point I wanted to make, with respect to this, is there is a provision for exemptions here – and this was raised as well, this morning, by one of the members of the media, about whether or not there will be any potential in this legislation for us to be lowering the bar or to be watering the expectations and the requirements that we have in particular occupations. Mr. Speaker, we need to be clear on that, this bill does not do that, but it does provide an exemption. For example, Mr. Speaker, if there is a level of practice and a level of qualifications that currently exists for an occupation in Newfoundland and Labrador, for example – and I will use the chiropractic one as an example, and I do not know if that is a good example, but I will just use the name, the chiropractic one. If, currently, they have a higher standard of qualifications or, Mr. Speaker, if the duties of a chiropractor in Newfoundland and Labrador are such that they are different, for whatever particular reason, than the same occupation in another Province, then they can apply to government for an exemption to be exempted from this particular labour mobility act.

So there is no requirement, Mr. Speaker, for a regulatory body to lower their standards, at all. The requirement is that all regulatory bodies will adopt and put into practice, full practice, this labour mobility act once it is passed and adopted and given assent here in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker.

If they feel, as I said before, that there are challenges for them because they feel that they have to lower their standards they can apply to government for an exemption. In applying for the exemption, Mr. Speaker, it would be required of them to demonstrate to government why they feel they cannot allow full labour mobility.

As I have previously said, Mr. Speaker, the expectation would be that they would demonstrate to government the qualifications and-or the scope of practice, in particular – the scope of practice for that particular occupation in this Province is such that those in other Provinces do different kinds of work. Therefore, it would not be a straight lateral move from one Province to the other that would be in the best interests of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, there is certainly a provision here for the regulatory bodies to make application to us and have that considered and, in fact, can be exempted so that there is not mobility for one particular occupation.

Mr. Speaker, certainly as part of, I guess, the rationale for bringing this forward, we recognize the tremendous needs in the Province, we recognize the value of the workforce here. We also recognize the value to make sure we have access to trained, quality individuals who are able to come here and work here in the Province and fill jobs that they are qualified and trained to do.

Mr. Speaker, another point perhaps I might add that I meant to mention earlier. With respect to whether or not this labour mobility provides an opportunity or encourages perhaps, Mr. Speaker, individuals to leave the Province, now that they can gain easier access to jobs in the occupation or the trade for which they are qualified in another part of the country. Mr. Speaker, I guess my response to that would be that if you look at the working patterns of the majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, most tend to want to work home. Even when they leave, Mr. Speaker, they leave for a particular reason and they want to come back.

Mr. Speaker, if this bill provides an opportunity for someone to leave the Province in the short term to gain easy access to employment, at which time they are going to gain experience and greater qualifications that will then allow them to come back home and make a greater contribution to the workforce here and to more easily gain a full-time, permanent position within their occupation back in this Province, Mr. Speaker, then we see that as a tremendous gain for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador because it opens up opportunities for the Province and it opens up opportunities for individuals right here that do not currently exist in some of the occupations that we are discussing here within Chapter Seven.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks by simply saying that I think this is just a real good, solid piece of legislation and I think, as I mentioned, one of my constituents from St. Lawrence and their experiences with a family member working away. I think there are countless examples like that, Mr. Speaker, where people will see a tremendous benefit of having full labour mobility for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador with the rest of Canada.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few words first of all about the bill. I would like to commend the minister for bringing it forward and say that labour mobility leads to more efficient labour markets and more opportunities for workers and employers. In that sense, I certainly would see it as a good thing. It also provides for a sense of unifying of the different provinces in our country and our social unions and so on. It is good to see it coming forward finally after the agreement was signed back in 1994. It is essentially a good bill and one that I would expect that we would support and would think that it is an important act, one very necessary.

My only concern I guess really would have already been addressed by the minister, and that would be the exemptions or restrictions that might be attached to the process. Certainly, while it lowers the barriers for workers wanting to work in other provinces, we would not want it to result in Newfoundlanders competing for jobs in their own Province. We believe that there are restrictions enough and the process is secure enough to be able to look after that.

Certainly, not too much to say other than I would hope that the list of occupations covered by this Chapter, I understand that some of them have been identified and the exceptions and restrictions and so on have already been identified and that in short order that list would continue to include the trades people and other occupations in the Province and throughout the territories that are important to us. Again, we see it as a positive bill and would look forward to supporting the bill in the House.

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

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

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 55, An Act To Implement Labour Mobility. We are grateful to the minister for seeing that there was a briefing with regard to the bill so that we had a full understanding of where the bill was coming from and what it was dealing with, and if we had any questions those questions could be answered. Obviously, the bill is helping us move into this year, into 2009, in a way that we stand tall with regard to the agreement on internal trade that was first signed back in 1994.

There are two chapters in that agreement that we really have not been dealing with here in Newfoundland and Labrador, Chapter Seven and Seventeen, which are very important. They deal with two different things that are very essential to having an agreement of this nature which involves all provinces and territories. One chapter deals with the mobility issues themselves and the issues of standards, and the second one begins with dispute resolution procedures. Both of these chapters are extremely important for an agreement to be put in place. It is important that Newfoundland have its own act that outlines what will happen here in Newfoundland to be incompliance with Chapter Seven and Chapter Seventeen of the agreement on internal trade.

I will not go through all of the things that the minister said because he did a good job in outlining what the act is about, but I think that it is important to recognize the potential good with regard to becoming compliant totally with the agreement on internal trade, especially around the issue of standards. It is very, very important that we have common standards in the country but these standards should be the standards of the highest order, not of the lowest common denominator. I think that we have read, and I am satisfied that the mechanisms that are in the proposed bill do help deal with making sure that standards will be kept on a very high level.

The ability for a Province to name exemptions, and to have exemptions named against it, is a process whereby people are encouraged to work to the highest order, and there is a mechanism for dispute resolution in case people do not agree. It is one thing to say as a Province we are exempting, for example, Quebec lawyers, as currently we are doing, but if Quebec does not agree than we need a way in which to resolve that dispute, and there seems to be a very solid dispute resolution mechanism in the bill.

I was very, very pleased to see the level of consultation that went on in putting this bill together. I know there are various groups who were involved who were very pleased with the level of consultation that happens. I think it is an example of when there is real consultation, you do end up with a bill that we can all look at and say, this is good.

With that, Mr. Speaker – just one other point. I noticed that in the bill, as well, in the dispute resolutions, this notion of consultations continues, because the dispute resolution mechanism allows for consultations between government and the regulatory bodies who might be affected in a particular dispute. Then, of course, a panel gets put in place which makes decisions based upon the consultations. So, this notion of continuing the consultations is extremely important if the spirit of the agreement itself, the agreement on internal trade, and if the spirit of our act is going to be maintained.

So, with that, I thank the minister for the work that has been done in his department in order to get this bill to the table.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to stand and have a few words on the minister's bill today, An Act To Implement Labour Mobility. I certainly appreciate members opposite for their comments. I particularly appreciate the Member for The Straits & White Bay North for his support for this bill, and obviously, recognizing the importance of it to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly the labour in this Province, and indeed, recognizing that support for this bill supports the great initiatives that our government has been able to do to support labour and support opportunities in this Province in recent years.

Mr. Speaker, this discussion on this bill is as a result of discussions that took place, I guess, with the First Ministers back in January of 2009, where they endorsed amendments to the Agreement on Internal Trade which focused on particularly Chapter Seven which is the chapter which addresses labour mobility in the country. What it does, essentially, they are endorsing ability for workers to have the freedom to be able to move from one province to another in their chosen field of work.

This revised chapter will provide that any worker certified for an occupation by a regulatory authority of one province or territory is to be recognized as qualified for that occupation by all other provinces and territories.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at labour mobility, there are three main areas when we look at labour mobility that is addressed in this chapter. One is residency requirements. The primary one is that certain practices and professions regarding occupational licensing, certification, registration, which includes training and education, is a barrier. As well, as some of the differences in our occupational qualifications are recognized. Under Chapter Seven, and I guess the removing and reducing of some of the issues in Chapter Seven, which we will see through this bill, will certainly improve on these barriers.

It is important, Mr. Speaker, as the minister outlined when we look at labour mobility in our Province, it is important, both to the individual to be able to have these opportunities, to be able to move from province to province, but it is also equally important for our economy, particularly here in Newfoundland and Labrador, as it will provide strength to our economy and provide opportunity for our economy to adapt to change, to develop new technologies, to be innovative and certainly to be able to build on our growth and to be competitive in the global market. An ability to attract strong, qualified people, the ability for our own people to be able to move from province to province to gain experience will certainly be beneficial to our Province in the future.

Mr. Speaker, when we specifically talk about some of the restrictions, occupational mobility can certainly be restrictive when it comes to particular regulations. Things like licensing and training and education are requirements that would prevent the flow of labour from one province to another. In particular, Mr. Speaker, in many cases, it prevents one province or another to be able to address some of the labour needs in a timely fashion. For example, restrictions limit the supply of physicians and their specialities given the specialized training and licensing that is required in that particular field of work. Through agreement in Chapter Seven on labour mobility, we should see some improvements in this area, certainly in times of need and times in which we have to address it in a timely manner.

Mr. Speaker, what this particular bill addresses is Chapter Seven of the Agreement on Internal Trade and this chapter applies directly to regulatory bodies that have the legislative power to provide an individual with a licence to practice an occupation in another jurisdiction. We are talking about occupations that include the Allied Health Professionals, we are talking nurses, doctors, optometrists, chiropractors and the list goes on; there is an extensive list.

Specifically to Chapter Seven, if I might just point out for those who are listening, the difference in Chapter Seven that we are seeing now compared to previously is that in Chapter Seven previously it took a best efforts approach to address labour mobility whereas now these changes, these legislative changes, will ensure that the chapter points out there must be a full compliance approach. With the best efforts approach, certified individuals could be required to undergo additional training, experience, examination or assessment when moving to another jurisdiction. This is certainly not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the chapter, which is to achieve full labour mobility.

The full compliance approach requires that individuals be certified in a regulated occupation in one jurisdiction will have the certification recognized in all other Canadian jurisdictions barring the approval of an exemption such as the protection of public health and safety. As the minister alluded to exemptions, there is a process, a detailed process, there are fines involved, and there is some protection there to ensure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who want to go to another province can be protected, just as we will protect people from other provinces coming to Newfoundland and Labrador.

Specifically, the key changes to Chapter Seven, in section 703, addresses the extent of obligation, which is now changed from best efforts clause to a full compliance clause. We see in section 706 that licensing and certification and registration of workers was non-existent in the previous chapter and the new chapter now outlines allowable certification practices and requires automatic certification unless an exemption is approved.

Section 708 recognizes legitimate objective which was non-existent, but now requires that exemptions only be approved where there are material differences in knowledge, skills and ability. In section 710 there is a dispute settlement clause that has not really changed but in Chapter Seventeen there have been some changes that will see penalties for unnecessary exemptions.

Mr. Speaker, it is very detailed, it is very important for the labour people in this Province and across the county. Within that as well, I think as the minister had outlined, and I would certainly like to give some detail, that through this process, like so much of the things that we do as a government, it is important when we move forward with legislation, when we talk about changes in the Province, when we talk about improving the Province, it is so important that we listen to the people, we engage with people directly involved in some of these decisions. In this particular case, Mr. Speaker, there has been extensive consultation taking place over the past few months, and the past year or so, that would allow industry, regulatory bodies and post-secondary institutions to have their input in this particular bill.

To give you some example, in July of 2008 regulatory bodies and post-secondary institutions participated in a half day consultation session where we sought their input and suggested changes to Chapter Seven. Again, Mr. Speaker, in February 2009, regulatory bodies and post-secondary institutions were briefed on the negotiated changes, they were advised of their responsibilities under the chapter and informed that the legislation would be required to bring the act governing regulated bodies into compliance.

In April of 2009, the unions representing workers certified in regulated occupations, including the construction unions represented by the Newfoundland and Labrador Building Construction Trades Council were consulted and offered input into this, as well. In October of 2009, the Strategic Partnership Committee was advised of the changes to the chapter, and that legislative amendments would be required. Then, finally on December 5, 2009, three briefing sessions were held with regulatory bodies, unions, post-secondary institutions, advising them that the legislation was drafted and may be introduced to the House of Assembly in this particular session. Key elements of the bill were discussed, and the reaction was very positive.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have seen from industry, we have seen from professionals in this Province, particularly when government engaged them in serious matters that would not only enhance their position and their opportunities, but enhance the Province, we found that they have certainly been appreciative of the opportunity to have input, and the stakeholders thank government for their efforts to engage them during the past eighteen months, and are certainly anxious for this legislation to be introduced as they see a true and real benefit to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the timelines and the regulatory bodies, they have been working on amending their bylaws, they have been working on policies, and have submitted their request for exemptions to government. Through the exemption process, government will determine what is to be approved - probably by early summer - and the jurisdictions then have the opportunity that they can challenge each other for non-compliance as of this date in which some other province will be able to challenge this Province; but, likewise, this Province will be able to challenge some of the other jurisdictions with respect to non-compliance, with respect to the exemptions, and ultimately, through a negotiated process, hopefully open up the doors so we have absolutely, totally full compliance right across the country.

Mr. Speaker, certainly in conclusion, we see this as another opportunity to continue on the recent successes that we have seen, not only in education, but the opportunities and the successes that we have seen to build a progressive province where all are able to contribute.

Today's legislation on labour mobility will ensure compliances Chapter Seven of the Agreement on Internal Trade and support even greater advances in the labour force by making it easier for individuals and regulated occupations to receive licences and to be able to avail of work opportunities right across this country.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand today and speak to the second reading of the bill, An Act To Implement Labour Mobility, Bill 55 as we know it in this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I have a great interest in this bill. This bill is, I believe, a very positive and a very forward looking bill. My background, before I came to the House of Assembly, was in adult education for about twenty or so years. One of the things I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that frustrated people the most was when they would go and get some training in whatever area that they were looking at, work for awhile and then decide that they wanted to move, to advance their career, to pursue new opportunities or whatever, move to another jurisdiction within the country and find out that they had to then be recertified because they were moving to another part of the country and we did not have similar certification standards. So you were working as a massage therapist, or you are working at whatever it may have been in the Province of, say, Newfoundland and Labrador and you wanted to go somewhere else to take advantage of opportunities that presented themselves, and you would find that you would have to go back for a licensing exam, or do a course for upgrading or something like that.

The same would happen if people wanted to move from Ontario into Newfoundland and Labrador, for instance. The jurisdictions did not all necessarily have the same set of standards and certifications. This bill, the labour mobility act, allows that to happen. It brings those kinds of standards, and those kinds of synergies back into the occupation so that it allows for people to freely move between jurisdictions, between geographic boundaries, while still practising the trade, the craft or the skill that they have been trained in and have been working at for some period of time.

What I like about it, besides the fact that it allows people to get on and earn a living, what I like about it is the fact that it allows for what I would call: labour efficiencies. One of the things, as an employer, you want to see is that people that you hire – and believe me, Mr. Speaker, over the years I hired many dozens of people in some companies that I owned and operated. You want people to be productive as soon as they can when they come into your organization, when they come into you workplace. This will allow for that to happen. If somebody wants to come and work in a certified occupation from another province, they will be able to do that.

There are exemptions, as some of the other speakers have referenced, but they will be just that; they will be exceptions and exemptions that may be challenged and may be allowed. For the vast majority of people who are looking for employment in other jurisdictions, it will now be seamless. It will now allow for workers to be able to move freely about the country and to be able to find employment wherever they may want to do that.

Mr. Speaker, if I could, I am going to give just a little example - a little personal example, because I find sometimes it helps people understand the purposes of legislation if we give examples of what can happen. I am going to give an example that I came across just this spring of a young Newfoundland and Labrador woman who was here in this Province and decided that she wanted to become a massage therapist.

She left the Province to go to Nova Scotia to get her training. She went there for personal reasons. She potentially could have done her training here in the Province, but there were reasons that brought her to Nova Scotia. She went to Nova Scotia and she spent over a year up in Nova Scotia, studied, at great expense to her because she had to have a place to live and all those kinds of things. She was away from her family - her mother and father and her siblings who are here in the Province. She was away from them for really the first time in her life for any extended period of time. She worked very hard and did very, very well at the course that she took at an institute in Nova Scotia.

She graduated as a massage therapist, received her paperwork from the institution that she attended and she took the exams that were required to be taken up there and passed them, got accepted, got certified, got licensed to practice, I guess you would call it, and worked, worked for almost a full year up there. She decided this past spring that now was the time for her to move back home. She had gotten herself an education. She had created for herself a work history. She had spent about a year working in Nova Scotia in the field for which she was trained and decided she wanted to come home and do that same thing. When she came home, unbeknownst to her at the time, because this legislation was not in effect in the spring, when she came home, she was told, you cannot practise here. You are going to have to now go and do some skills upgrading and write a test and so on and so on.

The experience – I will not give you all the gory details – but the experience for her, to put it bluntly, was very bad. It was an experience that at the end of the day, she did not end up getting the licence to practise in Newfoundland and Labrador. She stayed home with her family for two or three months, trying to work her way through the hurdles, I would call them, the barriers that were presented to her. She never did, at the end of the day, getting licensed to practise here. We had discussions about that in some of our meetings – the ministers, when we were discussing this labour mobility legislation earlier in the spring. I referenced her case, because it just happened to come to my attention at that time.

Do you know what that young lady did, Mr. Speaker, after three months of being home here? She went back to Nova Scotia. She went up to Nova Scotia and went to work, because she could not afford to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador – the Province that she was born and raised in. She went back to Nova Scotia.

There is a good ending to the story. The good ending is she went back and got a little bit more money, and came back, knowing the kinds of barriers that she was going to face, because we did not have this kind of legislation in place, she came back a more informed person, and when she came back, she was more prepared to tackle those barriers – and they were not barriers, by the way, that people were deliberately putting in place for her, it was just the systems had evolved. So, when she came back, she was more prepared, she knew what the barriers were, she tackled those barriers, knowing what it was she needed to do to succeed, and she ended up getting certified here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and is working here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So it is a good ending to the story, but I point it out just because if we do not have legislation like this, people could still encounter those kinds of barriers. So this legislation will allow for people who want to move throughout our country, throughout the provinces and territories in our country, to be able to do that. It is about regulatory bodies saying if the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador certifies somebody, recognizes somebody, licenses somebody as a person who can work in occupation (a), (b), or (c), then so should all of the other provinces in Canada who have similar standards. If you believe that you should not license that person because of life safety reasons or health reasons or whatever it may be, then you can file an objection. There are ways that you can stop people from coming into your province to work if you feel they do not have the necessary skills. They would be the exception more so than the rule. I think that is a good way of handling things. I think that, in our country, people who go to educational institutions where we have industry associations that licence and train people and certify people, I think it is only right that people have the option of pursuing their dreams and pursuing their goals. Young people today do have dreams and do have goals and do want to get out and explore other parts of our country. I think that is a good thing, and a lot of them will come back maybe to Newfoundland and Labrador. Some of them do, some of them do not, but that happens in all provinces.

I was at an event yesterday, Mr. Speaker, with a young technology company here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that the provincial government was supporting. The owner of that company called his employees into the room we were in, while we were doing the announcement, to be a part of the announcement. I am not that old, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe. I am less than fifty; I will say that to you. When I looked around the room, I think I was the oldest person in the room yesterday in that company. There were people there who looked to me like they were twenty, twenty-two, twenty-four, and twenty-five. When the formal part of the event was over and I was going around the room talking to people - there were a lot of people there from Newfoundland and Labrador, a lot of people there who had come in from other parts of the Province into St. John's to work. I was really glad to see that.

There were people there from Newfoundland and Labrador who were working in Ottawa, who came home to work with this company. I met one young man who came from Ontario. Born and raised in Ontario, who came to work with this company and work in Newfoundland and Labrador. He wanted to experience working in Newfoundland and Labrador. So making it easier for people to be able to move freely about the country and pursue their dreams and experience the kinds of experiences that they want to experience, I think is a good thing. This kind of legislation is very, very positive. We are attracting people back to the Province who have left. We are also attracting people to this Province from other provinces. Having legislation like this that allows for ease of movement, ease of movement of bright, young minds, professionals, skilled tradespeople, certified, registered, practicing professionals is a very positive thing.

I am glad that the Minister of Education, through his department and his officials, in consultation with the unions, in consultation with the business associations, in consultation with the strategic partnership. His officials have done a ton of work on this. For this paper to land here now today there has been a ton of work done before this gets here. I am glad that it has finally made it here to the House of Assembly. I think it is a very positive piece of legislation. I think it is something that we as a Province should encourage. The fact that all the other provinces are signing onto it says that right across the country we believe this is a good thing. The people who are out there who now want to be able to move from jurisdiction A to jurisdiction B and C will be able to do that without having to worry about, what I would call artificial barriers. It is hard enough to go to a new location and find work without being barred by artificial barriers like: well, you came from somewhere else geographically, so you can't work here. That does not make a lot of sense. If you have the skill sets, if you have the education, you have the training, you have been recognized by another professional body in another part of this country, you have some work experience, and you have a work history, then I think it is a positive thing.

We had a report done, Mr. Speaker, not too long ago, a couple of years ago. One of my colleagues, the MHA for St. John's North was heavily involved with it, a skills task force. It talked about trying to make sure that we had enough skilled labour available to us for the kinds of work and the kinds of projects that we saw coming. This piece of legislation will help facilitate that. This piece of legislation will help our unions and our professional bodies and our regulator bodies in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador ensure that we have the kinds of people we need here in this Province to be able to make sure that we have a very vibrant, a very positive and a very productive economy here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will stop there. I just want to say that I am very happy to see it finally hit the floor of the House of Assembly. There has been a lot of work done by a lot of people. I want to recognize the work that our officials did in the various departments to get this legislation put before us. I want to recognize the work that the community in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the consultations that went on. There was a lot of community involvement in this and I want to also - as I heard some of the members opposite speak, I heard them indicate that they felt it was positive and they would support this legislation and I think that is a positive thing, that this House in a unanimous way will support this legislation so that people can move throughout the country.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne): If the hon. Minister of Education speaks now he shall close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I want to thank my colleagues who had the opportunity to speak to this particularly important piece of legislation, my colleagues on this side of the House, the Minister of Innovation, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to Education, and of course the Member for The Straits & White Bay North and the Leader of the New Democratic Party. I want to thank them all for their comments and for the thoughtful way that they have expressed support for this piece of legislation.

It is clear from my perspective, that people in the House, all of us here understand the importance of this particular bill, Mr. Speaker, the importance of passing this particular bill today, or moving it forward today, I should say. It is clear that people understand the importance of this piece of legislation to be enacted so as to be a contributor to the continued growth of the Province when it comes to labour and labour mobility and labour development.

I remind people, Mr. Speaker, that the purpose of the bill, just to reiterate some of the things that have been said but to be clear for everybody. The purpose of the bill is to have us sign on to Chapter Seven of the Agreement on Internal Trade, which will essentially bring us on with the rest of the country, with the rest of the provinces and the territories, and it will provide, once enacted, for individuals who become certified in an occupation in another part of the country, Mr. Speaker, to have access to labour mobility and allow them to come to Newfoundland and Labrador to work. That is important, Mr. Speaker. That is very important for us. We have a number of occupations here where we are challenged to recruit people, recruit qualified candidates, and all of us on both sides of the House, Mr. Speaker, on any given day - any given day in Question Period we have discussions about health care in particular, and our ability, or inability in some cases, or our challenges to attract enough qualified candidates.

Mr. Speaker, for the record, let me just say that some of the occupations we are talking about - to give people a sense of what this is all about, we are talking about architects, accountants, chiropractors, dental hygienists, early childhood educators, lawyers, licensed practical nurses, massage therapists – is an example I used, and my colleague used a few minutes ago - physicians, pharmacists, physiotherapists, veterinarians, social workers. There are countless, countless occupations that are governed by regulatory bodies that are a part of this process. Once we adopt this bill, individuals in those occupations - we will be able to go out, where need be, to recruit individuals to come to work here and help us to fill jobs that we are having difficulty filling right now.

The reverse is also true, Mr. Speaker. We must remember that this opens up opportunities for residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, individuals who on occasion, for whatever particular reason, will gain training, post-secondary and other kinds of training and skills in a particular area but have difficulty finding employment. We have had discussions here, and we have had some really, really positive investments in apprenticeship and the Red Seal Program, but there is often the occasion where individuals are challenged to find employment, Mr. Speaker. This provides an opportunity that if an individual is trained in one of the occupations that I just mentioned; it provides an opportunity for them to seek employment in a neighbouring province in Canada.

As I said in my opening comments, Mr. Speaker, we all know that nine times out of ten individuals who leave Newfoundland and Labrador for employment, do so only for employment and to gain enough experience and training that will allow them to secure a job back here in our Province. This, Mr. Speaker, opens the door to endless possibilities that might not have previously existed for individuals in our Province.

I say, Mr. Speaker, it is a very, very good piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that we believe will be very supportive of many of the objectives we have been working toward in this Province with respect to growing our economy and offering support to labour in particular.

I want to touch for a couple of moments, Mr. Speaker, on the issue of exemptions in this, just to remind people exactly how the exemptions work, and I will speak to one sort of specifically that was raised by a member opposite. This may come up again in Committee, I am not sure, but the issue was raised, I think, around if we exempted lawyers from Quebec and whether or not the Province of Quebec could block that.

When an exemption is filed, Mr. Speaker, it is the government who makes the decision whether to accept the exemption or not. If we accept the exemption, another province cannot block that exemption. They can challenge it, and they can question, and they can wonder why we have enacted the exemption, but they cannot block it. So, if it is a decision of the government based on a request from a regulatory body of this Province, such as the lawyers, the regulatory body for lawyers, if it is the decision here, as a government, that we want to exempt lawyers from another province, such as Quebec, because, through legitimate reasons, the argument can be made and the case can be stated clearly that their scope of practice, or the requirements of their job, is at a level less than what we expect in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, this legislation provides us, as a Province and as a government, the opportunity to approve that exemption without interference from anyone else.

I say, Mr. Speaker, for the House, and for a matter of record, that this does not require or entail or suggest that we are going to lower standards in our Province. It gives us control over whether or not we will exempt other occupations from coming here to practice their scope of work. That, indeed, is a good thing. It is a good thing because it allows us to maintain control over what we are doing.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we continue to talk about as a government, one of the decisions made early on in our mandate, is the fact that we recognize that education is the cornerstone for us. It is a pillar to the continued growth and development of the Province, and to the continued growth and development of individuals within the Province.

We have continued, Mr. Speaker, to focus on that as a priority for government. Mr. Speaker, relative to that I want to just make mention that one of the things we did to have a review of labour requirements and educational requirements was the Skills Task Force that my colleague, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, spoke about.

That, Mr. Speaker, was a significant piece of work, a significant piece of work that we undertook, but very clearly what that piece of work did was, it identified for us some of the needs that we will have in this Province over the coming years for skilled trades in particular. It identified for us where we are potentially going to experience shortages, and what occupations we need to focus on to ensure that we have the appropriate number of qualified and trained individuals to fill those jobs as we see the development and the growth and the moving forward of some of these megaprojects and the natural resource projects and the oil and gas projects.

Mr. Speaker, that report, when it was completed - and one of the hon. members on this side chaired that committee - had fifty recommendations, fifty recommendations, Mr. Speaker, that we were asked to consider. The fifty recommendations not only applied to government, Mr. Speaker. We do own some of them, I submit. A great number of them were targeted toward government; and, Mr. Speaker, without being totally off base, I think we are somewhere in the area of 90 per cent-plus having implemented the recommendations that we were asked to move forward with. More than 90 per cent of what we were asked to do as a government, Mr. Speaker, we have done.

There were also recommendations for industry and for labour. It was a collective effort. This Skills Task Force Report came about, not because of work done by government, not because of work done by industry and labour but it was a collective effort, Mr. Speaker. It was a collaborative approach where all of us sat down and we took the opportunity to dialogue and to look to the future and to research, and the result of that was that particular report.

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly very pleased to say that we have moved forward with that; and, as I said a few moments ago, we are not resting on our successes. We recognize that we have done some good things as a government. We also recognize that some very good things have been happening in the workforce. We have gotten tremendous co-operation from labour and from the many trade unions and others who have a very strong, very vested interest in labour trends and labour development in this Province. So we are very pleased with that, Mr. Speaker.

I also want to recognize all of the groups who have been a part of this process, this particular process on the labour mobility legislation here today. We have been engaged with discussions - we as a government, and our officials - with unions, unions representing workers in the various certified regulatory bodies as it pertains to the occupations identified. We have had discussions with the post-secondary education representatives, the Strategic Partnership Council, other regulatory bodies, and I want to say thank you to those groups, Mr. Speaker, for all of those who participated.

As my colleague, the Member for The Isles of Notre Dame, said a few moments ago, we have had a lot of consultation, a lot of discussions, a lot of formal sessions where we have invited groups and individuals in to share information with them exactly about this bill and what it means, and how it will work in practice once it is adopted by the Legislature. There has been tremendous interest and there has been tremendous feedback.

We have grown, Mr. Speaker. As we have gone through this process we have grown and we have made changes, and we have adjusted the course that we have been on, all in response to the feedback that we have received from our partners – our partners out there in industry and in the private sector. It is all because it has been a positive relationship, a collaborative relationship, Mr. Speaker.

It is why I am pleased to say, as I said before, to acknowledge the members opposite and to see that on this particular legislation that is so, so important and will play such a vital role to not only allowing us to attract qualified individuals in hard-to-fill positions, but it opens up so many opportunities for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that I am so pleased to acknowledge that my colleagues opposite from the two other parties clearly have indicated they see the importance of this bill and clearly indicated their support for this particular piece of legislation. I thank them for that, Mr. Speaker.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to conclude my remarks by simply saying that I thank all hon. members who have had some input into this bill. It is an important piece of legislation. This is a good day for labour in this Province, to finally have this piece of legislation on the floor of the House of Assembly. I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to moving this forward through to Committee stage and to finally having the legislation passed so we can move forward and get on with actually enacting the bill from an operational perspective.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 55, An Act To Implement Labour Mobility, 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 Implement Labour Mobility. (Bill 55)

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: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Implement Labour Mobility", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 55)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I call Order 14, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Rail Service Act, 2009. (Bill 60)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to introduce a bill that amends the Rail Service Act, 2009, Bill 60.

Mr. Speaker, it is a housekeeping item and the bill would amend the Railway Service Act, 2009 to allow the minister to cancel a permit to operate a railway where the permit holder fails to comply with an agreement between the permit holder and the government respecting the operation of the railway. The amendment will come into force on the day the Railway Service Act, 2009 comes into force.

Mr. Speaker, the regulation of the construction and operation of a railway that operates completely within provincial boundaries is the responsibility of the Province, whereas regulation of railways that cross provincial boundaries is a federal responsibility. Now, in the Province currently there are three federally regulated railways in the Province, and as a result of significant mineral deposits and exploration in Labrador, there is a possibility of perhaps as many as three additional railway services been established in Labrador. We do not know for sure how many. However, we do know that the Bloom Lake Railway is currently under construction. It is important that we, as a Province, have the necessary legislative framework in place to enable us to have a regulatory regime to govern any such operation. This was the purpose of the Rail Service Act, 2009, and indeed the amendment that we are debating here in the House today. This amendment is simply intended to strengthen that regulatory regime.

This bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Rail Service Act, 2009, Bill 60, has the following amendments. "Subsection 13(3) of the Rail Service Act, 2009…" which I might add, outlines the conditions under which the minister may cancel or suspend a permit "…is amended by adding immediately after paragraph (a) the following: (a.1) the permit holder fails to comply with an agreement between the government and the permit holder pertaining to the operation of the rail service." Of course, this act, as I have already mentioned, Mr. Speaker, comes into force on the day the Rail Service Act, 2009 comes into force.

Mr. Speaker, essentially, this amendment is a housekeeping item to ensure that the Rail Service Act, 2009 does what it is intended to do and ensures an appropriate agreement enforcement mechanism for the Province. Of course, most members can recall that the Rail Service Act was passed in the House of Assembly last spring, and this act was passed to better enable government to regulate the construction, operation of a number of the proposed railways in the Province. Again, since the passage of that act, government in consultation with justice officials have decided that this amendment should be passed to give government a mechanism by which to revoke the operating or construction permit of a rail service operator who fails to honour an agreement with the Province pertaining to the operation of a rail service.

I think it is pretty well straightforward, Mr. Speaker. I have outlined it and I give others a chance in the House now to look at the amendment and perhaps enter the debate.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to take a few minutes with regard to Bill 36, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Rail Service. As the minister stated, why the amendment to the act is brought in today is to regulate, I guess, more so the three applications. I think there are three applications that are pending, and as the minister stated, one of them is already in the construction stages. Mr. Speaker, with regard to, as the minister stated, the rail services in our Province, and more so in Labrador when it is going from Wabush over to another province, it is a federal regulation. I was also under the impression that if a rail bed is less than thirty-five kilometres or something it could become the total jurisdiction of the Province. Now, I stand to be corrected on that.

One of the most interesting things I found and I think this came about last year, when the bill was brought forward last spring, is that after the traditional rail service here in our Province closed down, it was the explosion of a number of moose-related accidents. We talk about it here in the House many times, but apparently when the old Newfie Bullet used to travel across our Province it took care of a lot of them. There was somewhere around 1,500 moose that were killed annually.

MR HEDDERSON: There was a moose catcher on the front.

MR. BUTLER: The minister said there was a moose catcher on the front. Now, I do not know if that is correct or not but I guess that is why more moose now come to the side of our highways, because this was a large fatality with regard to the population. Like the minister said, this is a housekeeping thing. This is an example of tightening the legislation to make sure that the rules and regulations are followed. We have no problem with this, Mr. Speaker, and like I said, the legislation came in last year, we agreed with it then and I am sure that we totally support the amendment.

Thank you.

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

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

I am happy to just say a couple of things with regard to Bill 60, An Act To Amend The Rail Service Act, 2009. As my colleague just said, it was just this year in the spring session that we did pass An Act To Amend The Rail Service Act, 2009. Obviously, in the intervening months somebody picked up on the fact there was this loophole. The loophole is, of course, that obviously the government should have the right and the authority to take action if a permit holder fails to comply with an agreement. I can see the minister nodding his head, that that is what happened. Somebody, probably the lawyers or whatever, read through and realized that there was this loophole. These loopholes have to be taken care of, so naturally I am going to vote for the bill.

It does give us another moment to do some reflection with regard to the whole thing of having the bit of railway that we have in the Province. It is not much. It is important that even with that piece of railway, and I wish we still had our railway in this Province on the Island but we do not, but I think it still is important that obviously we regulate what is here, and government has that responsibility. Every time there is an application, as we know, the railway we have is in relationship to mining and every time that there is an application everything has to kick in. Environmental concerns have to kick in and the company or whoever is asking for the permit has to abide by all the rules that exist in our Province with regard to any disturbance of the land. So it is good to see that the department is on top of keeping our legislation where it should be and that it was on top of catching this loophole. I am just happy to see that this is being tied up.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works speaks now he shall close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the members opposite for participating in the debate with regard to the amendment. I cannot help but reflect and be a little bit nostalgic as well. The hon. member has mentioned The Newfie Bullet and of course days on the railway. We still have a lot of people throughout the Island portion who remember. Of course, one of my fondest memories as a young boy was travelling on the rail service down to my mother's hometown of Plate Cove East. Those memories are still there.

Again, to get back to the bill, Bill 60, I would just like to close down debate today, Mr. Speaker, and of course, in due time it will come to committee.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 60, An Act to Amend The Rail Service Act, 2009 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 Rail Service Act, 2009. (Bill 60)

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: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Rail Service Act, 2009", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 60)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Order 12, Bill 56.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Government Money Purchase Pension Plan Act". (Bill 56)

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

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

It is an honour and privilege for me today to introduce and speak to second reading of Bill 56 which is entitled, An Act To Amend The Government Money Purchase Pension Plan Act.

Basically, in the explanatory notes that are on the inside cover of the bill, it says: The bill will amend the Government Money Purchase Pension Plan Act to ensure consistency with both the Pension Benefits Act, 1997 and the Income Tax Act (Canada). The Bill will provide an employer under the provisions of the Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 may be an employer for the purpose of this particular pension plan. It will provide that employees who participate in the plan be permitted to elect to contribute to the plan with respect to authorized leave without pay, with the employer being required to match the employee contribution, subject to terms and conditions which may be set by the Minister of Finance. It also provides for the establishment of a committee, which a committee actually happens to be in existence, but there is nothing in the plan or the act which provides for that committee.

Mr. Speaker, I believe today that pensions, the whole idea of pensions is certainly a major topic of public interest and public discussion. Pensions are – I think it is fair to say they are very complex documents and I do not know if a lot of people really understand the way they work. I think there is a lot of confusion out there about pensions and what they should do and what they are supposed to do.

Pensions, and I mentioned this the other day, we are hearing in the news about employees or former employees of Abitibi-Price in Grand Falls who have a defined benefit pension plan with that company and that company is in financial difficulty. As a result of that it cannot contribute to make contributions to the plan.

As a result of the plan, there is a real possibility that the pension of many retirees of that company will now receive a lesser pension plan than they would have if the company was still operating, if it was still solvent and if it could continue to make its contributions, which it is required by law to make. Given its financial situation, given its insolvency, it is not able to make it.

Mr. Speaker, the other item in the news, of course, is with our own retirees; people who have worked for the government for many years and who have pension plan with the government. Those retirees have expressed a view that the indexing in their pension plan is not enough and that they would like to receive increases to the plan. Then again, we hear from people, a lot of people in this country who have no pension plan at all. It is a topic of discussion. I think it is important that it be a topic of public discourse in this country. As I indicated the other day the Federal Minister of Finance, Mr. James Flaherty, has called a meeting of provincial finance ministers which will take place in Whitehorse next week at which time a number of research projects were initiated by the federal minister. The results of those investigations and those projects will be made available to federal and provincial finance ministers. Those reports will inform government officials and hopefully will enable provincial ministers of finance, and provincial ministers who are responsible for pensions across the country, to bring forward much needed legislation which will hopefully address some of the concerns that are being raised and are in the news today.

The regulation of pensions in our Province is governed by a legislation called the Pension Benefits Act and that comes within the purview of my colleague and friend, the Minister of Government Services. Pensions are also regulated by the Income Tax Act of Canada, of course, which is federal legislation. Registered pension plans and registered retirement pension plans are programs established by the federal government to encourage people to put money aside to finance their retirement. So it involves a deferral. Some people say it is a tax break. I do not think it is really a break or a deduction but you do get a deduction for that year and then the money that you put in the pension plan, and the money that the employer matches that goes into the pension plan as well, you get a tax deferral or a tax exemption for that particular year, and then the money, while it is in the plan, grows. Hopefully, it grows if it is invested wisely. It will grow and the increase in benefits - there are no taxes on the increase in growth. If you invested in shares and the shares go up in value, you do not pay the tax then. If there is a dividend received, there are no taxes paid. If there is interest received there are no taxes paid, but you pay the taxes when you retire and you withdraw the money out of the pension plan through an annuity or through a RIFF or through a locked-in retirement account or whatever it may happen to be, the taxes are then paid. The income is included in your taxable income under the tax scheme for the year and the taxes are paid at that time.

I think the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has six pension plans and the Minister of Finance is responsible for those plans. There is the Public Service Pension Plan, there is the Teachers' Pension Plan, there is the pension plan of the Members of the House of Assembly, there is the Uniformed Pension Plan and there is the Money Purchase Plan which we are dealing with today. Now, most of the government plans are what are called defined benefit plans where there is a defined benefit set out in the plan where the sponsor of the plan, which in this case is the government, promises the employees a defined benefit. The benefit is clearly set out and it is therefore necessary for the employer, which in our case is the government of the Province, to ensure that enough money is put in the plan. They rely on actuaries; professionals call them actuaries who make the calculation. The actuaries do a review of the pension plans every three years and they then calculate what the liability of the plan is. They look at all the promises that the plan has made, and they take the present value of those liabilities and then they make sure - the recommendation, of course, is there is enough money put in the plan equal to the present value of all those future liabilities.

Now, I can say what it is, but do not ask me to explain what it is because I am certainly no expert when it comes to actuarial science, I can assure you of that. Valuing the money in the plan is pretty easy, but what we have found is that there is not enough money in the plan to match the liabilities and therefore we have what is called an unfunded pension liability on which we have to pay interest every year.

What has happened in the Abitibi situation, of course, is that because AbitibiBowater is now insolvent they will not be able to continue to make payments into the plan to meet their obligations, and they are legally responsible, but they are insolvent. Unfortunately, under our bankruptcy law if a company goes insolvent, the amount they owe to the pension plan is an unsecured creditor or is an unsecured claim under that bankruptcy legislation or insolvency legislation, and as a result of that it is unlikely that when the assets of AbitibiBowater, if they are in fact liquidated - and I cannot recall whether they are in bankruptcy or they are in a proposal situation or restructuring situation. If the assets are liquidated, there will not be enough monies to pay all of the creditors and the claim of the pension plan is an unsecured claim and therefore it ranks down at the bottom. As a result of that, instead of getting 100 per cent of their pension, the retirees will only receive a certain percentage of that. I think Nortel is the same situation, and we read, I think hon. members probably have had a chance to read the stories that have appeared in Maclean's magazine and stories that have appeared in The Globe and Mail. There was a selection of stories in The Globe and Mail that ran which talked about the pension plans. I remember The Globe and Mail referred to government pension plans – now these are The Globe and Mail's words, they are not my words, and I think Maclean's magazine echoed those words. They called it gold-plated plans. It was a gold-plated plan because it is backed by the taxpayers of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, this particular pension plan we are talking about today is not a defined benefit plan. It is a different type of pension plan called a defined contribution plan. The obligation of the employer and the employee under that plan is that the employer will take a certain percentage of his monthly salary, and then she will invest that in an investment fund that is provided by the employer through some mutual fund company or life insurance company and the employer will match the contribution. I think it is about 5 per cent. It is a defined contribution plan, and from the point of view of the employer, the employer's obligation is merely to make sure they make the 5 per cent contribution every year. There is no guarantee what the benefit will be. The benefit will be whatever the amount of money accumulated in the fund, when the employee retires, will acquire when that employee goes out to buy an annuity or to take out a RRIF, or what have you. Now this particular plan, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the act, the act consists of three parts. It consists of the act itself, and Schedule A is in fact the plan, and then Schedule B is a list of what you may call quasi-government agencies out there, that have applied to the Minister of Finance over the years, to allow their employees to be included under the plan.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments, there are a number of amendments, most of them are merely to ensure that the plan complies with the Pension Benefits Act and the Income Tax Act. The most significant amendment here will permit employees who are on leave without pay to contribute to the plan in respect of the period of unpaid leave, such as maternity leave. The employee is now allowed to pay the proper contribution, and the employer who has granted the leave will pay the matching share. This, Mr. Speaker, is consistent with provisions for receiving credit for periods of leave without pay under the other government pension plans. The cost to government will merely be the matching contribution, the 5 per cent contribution.

The plan is also being amended, Mr. Speaker, to allow employers whose employees participate in the Public Service Pension Plan to also participate in the Government Money Purchase Pension Plan. So, employees who may work part-time and then participate in the Money Purchase Plan, often they move into full-time positions in the public service and therefore transfer to the Public Service Pension Plan. By this amendment, they will now be allowed to transfer their part-time pension credits under the Money Purchase Plan to the Public Service Pension Plan. So, they will go from the defined contribution plan to the defined benefit plan.

Currently, not all employers under the Public Service Pension Plan meet the eligibility criteria to participate in the Money Purchase Pension Plan. So we are proposing to amend the act to permit all Public Service Pension Plan employers to participate in the Money Purchase Pension Plan as well, just so that there is continuity between the two plans. Their part-time employees will participate in this plan and upon becoming full-time employees will be able to transfer their part-time pension credits to the Public Service Pension Plan.

Thirdly, as I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, there is a committee in place to oversee the operation of the Government Money Purchase Pension Plan. While the committee is in place, and it is comprised of both employee and employer representatives, it is good governance practice to formalize the establishment of such a committee. There will be an amendment in the legislation that will enable this to be done.

This committee, Mr. Speaker, is responsible to ensure that the contributions that are accumulated to the credit of a particular employee are invested prudently in the investment classes that are provided for or prescribed by the committee, and they also have an obligation to promote the plan into educating employees on the importance of taking an active interest in their investment. Because I believe that what has been learned is that young employees really do not have a lot of interest in their pension plan and a lot of employees really do not pay much attention to their pension plan until they are about to retire.

When an education program is provided for those retiring employees, usually the only question they are interested in is: What do I get? How much do I get, or how much do I get if I work another year, or I work another two years? Because under the defined benefit plan that information is available. That information can easily be calculated because the benefits under a defined contribution plan depend on the number of years you have worked. So, obviously the longer number of years you worked the greater will be your pension plan. Whereas in the defined contribution plan, as I said, your benefit there will depend upon the amount of money you have been able to accumulate.

You will never know, at least early in your career, how much you will have as a pension because you will not know how much will be accumulated. Of course, what can happen is that depending on how the stock market may do or the investments that you choose may do, if interest rates are low for many years the amount of money you accumulate will be lower. If interest rates, of course are high, if you invested in stocks, if the stock market has done well, then obviously you will have more money when you retire.

People who have no pension at all, people who have to get their own pension plan, which is Registered Retirement Savings Plan. Many of those people who are retiring this year or last year; they have been hurt if they have invested in the stock market. They have certainly been hurt in a major way, given the adverse effects of the stock market crash. A lot of those people who do not have a public pension plan will have to rely entirely on the federal government retirement benefits, such as Old Age Security and Canada Pension Plan benefits. Their RRSPs will also be reduced substantially. I believe the stock markets went down 19 per cent or 20 per cent or even more, and they have come back a bit since then. Those people, also, will now not have the pension. They will not have the stream of income from their pension plan which they thought they were going to get. Unfortunately, it is too bad. Obviously, people have to learn that in terms of planning your retirement, you have to ensure that you are lucky enough to retire at a time when the amount in your pension plan is relatively high.

Mr. Speaker, as I say, the act consists of the act itself. There is a schedule which sets out the plan. There are a number of changes in definition of the plan because the Pension Benefits Act has changed over the last number of years. The Income Tax Act has changed and I am advised that the Government Money Purchase Plan in fact is compliant but that there are a number of, basically, housekeeping items which are in this particular piece of legislation to modernize – and I think that might be a better word. To modernize and bring up-to-date the money purchase plan.

The acts needed to be reviewed for clarification purposes and amended to ensure consistency with the Public Benefits Act and the Income Tax Act, and under this legislation, the act will be modified where necessary.

As I said, there is very minor cost involved here. It was only with respect to the employees claiming their unpaid leave and being able to contribute to the pension plan for the time they are on unpaid leave, and the employer will match that, government will match that in the amount of 5 per cent.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the comments of other members of the House, and I look forward to the discussion and the debate.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My remarks will be very, very brief on this particular matter.

This is shaping up somewhat to be the pension cleanup session, I guess. This is the third piece of legislation that we have had notice of in this session dealing with pensions of one kind or another. We dealt earlier, of course, last week with the Memorial University Pensions Act, some amendments that were required to it. Now we are dealing here, of course, with the second bill, this one dealing with the Government Money Purchase Pension Plan Act and next week we are going to be dealing with amendments to the MHA Retiring Allowances Act. So we are certainly in the process this session of cleaning up various pieces of legislation.

As mentioned earlier last week when we talked about the Memorial piece, from time to time it is necessary to change the act and change the law as it stands to reflect the current circumstances, and that is what is happening here. It is good to see that government is, in fact, on the ball here. These changes are usually - you make these changes based upon events that take place. People run into certain circumstances in their employment, they want to retire early, they want to make more contributions, the lock-in periods, for example, that might apply to somebody, the time that you can retire, what kind of notice you have to give and so on, changes over time. So what we are seeing here is a reaction to those changing circumstances.

A lot of things, of course, cannot get anticipated. You cannot anticipate everything. It is only as life moves on that the circumstances come about which show you the circumstances and require the changes to be made. So, we will certainly be supportive of this particular piece of legislation and we are certain, of course, we will back here again probably next year or the year after with more amendments to the pensions act because that is life, that is the way it happens and it is, in fact, proper and appropriate that we make the necessary changes as and when required.

Thank you.

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

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

I am happy to take a few moments to speak to Bill 56, and I thank the minister for his explanation. Like the minister, I am not an expert in pensions, and if there is one thing that has been boggling my mind over the last weeks, it is all the work I have had to do on pensions. So, this act in particular was something else to challenge me, because I really had to find out what it meant. At least I have a layperson's understanding of what it is about, and I thank the minister for also giving the details of what his understanding is of the act, as well.

It is important that we keep things up-to-date, and that is what this act is about, making amendments to ensure that the particular act with regard to the Government Money Purchase Pension Plan is kept up-to-date with provincial and federal pension legislation, because besides the plan, this act itself, there are acts outside of this act which regulate pensions. So all other pension acts have to be compliant with the provincial pensions legislation. So, obviously, I am going to be voting for this bill, because it is a housekeeping piece that we have to do.

There are a couple of things I would like to raise, though, that I think are important. One of the amendments that is being suggested by this bill, an amendment to the act itself, calls for a committee, "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may appoint a committee to assist the minister in the administration of this Act and may prescribe the duties of the committee and designate the matters respecting which the committee may make recommendations to the minister." There is no sense here of how large that committee should be, how representative it should be and I would encourage the minister - although the minister is not going to be minister probably at some point when this committee gets set up, who knows – that the committee should be as representative as possible, and have a broad representation representing stakeholders who are interested in the act, and in the Government Money Purchase Pension Plan.

I might even like to suggest to the minister and to the government side that maybe all parties should be represented on that committee. As you all know by now, I am a believer in trying to really move along the notion of all-party committees in this Legislature, so that we learn to work a bit more together and not just have to deal with policy issues as we stand here on this floor.

I make that comment with regard to this committee because I think it could be a very important committee. Besides, a concern with regard to political representation, obviously there needs to be other stakeholders who would have to be on that committee as well.

I notice that it does not say it, but it would seem that this seems to be a merely advisory committee. There are no details with regard to how it should operate, how often it should meet or anything of that nature. I think I would like to have seen a bit more detail with regard to the committee because the paragraph says more than advice. It says: To assist the minister in the administration. So it seems to be an important role for this committee - to assist the minister in the administration of the act.

It says that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may prescribe the duties. I will suggest that there has to be a prescription of duties and there has to be some kind of sense of what this committee is going to deal with. I think this could be an extremely important committee, but it seems to be sort of dropped in there without too much detail about how it should be comprised and how it should operate.

It is just a concern for me that the government, both present and future, be aware of making this committee something that is accountable, something that is transparent and something that all parties in the House would have some sense of how it is operating.

I would like to talk a bit about pensions and respond to a couple of things that the minister talked about. He mentioned the fact that young people do not worry too much about pensions. It is not until people get to the point of pension time that they think about their pension and the question is: How much am I going to get?

I know a person, I taught this person actually, and when she was in her thirties – she had been a teacher and she decided to leave teaching. She took her pension out at that point because she wanted to go on and retrain and do a further degree, et cetera. She took her pension out. I still know this woman; we have remained friends all these years, having taught her in high school. Some years ago - I would say about ten, maybe fifteen years ago - she and I were chatting one day and I said: If you don't mind my saying it, do you want to tell me what your financial situation is for the future? What does your future look like for when you retire?

We started talking about that, and she started digging, and she realized that her situation when she turns sixty-five might mean that she would be living on the edge, that she would not have very much income when she turned sixty-five. So, she did further digging and she realized that if she had her full teachers' pension how much better off she would be at sixty-five than without the pension; that the money that she had been able to put into RRSPs up to that point, and that she would be able to add to over the next fifteen years or so, was not going to be money that could really sustain here in the lifestyle she has now, which is not a wealthy lifestyle, but it would not be able to sustain here. So she made a really brave decision; she got a leave of absence from her workplace and actually came back to Newfoundland, and she had to fill in a number of months in order to be eligible for her teachers' pension. She bought back in to her pension, worked what she needed to work, and now knows that she will get her full pension as a teacher. She figured out, working with an actuarial - or with an actuary - that taking money out of her RRSP, buying back her pension, and getting her full pension, she was much better off than leaving the money in the RRSP.

I think, as a government, the knowledge of the importance of a pension plan, of a pension fund, the importance of keeping that fund up is something that government is responsible for when we are talking about the public service sector, obviously, and pensions that government has responsibility for. We should really be very, very cautious with regard to some of the calls that I am starting to hear with regard to unlocking pensions; because the unlocking of a pension, if we get into that mode of thinking, affects both the fund itself as well as the individual. Somebody in their thirties may not - just like my friend, when she was in her early thirties, did not - even think about it, and just took her pension out because she was able to, because she was no longer going to teach, and found out twenty years later that she had made a gross error - but she was able to reverse it. Not everybody is able to reverse it when that kind of thing happens.

I really ask the government, if discussions are going on with regard to even contemplating unlocking pensions, that you have a very serious discussion. It is not something that I would want to support.

Pensions should be invested in, and the numbers of people in the pension, of course, help the pension fund to grow. They should be invested in, and they should be administered so that people have a comfortable income in their retirement. That is what a pension is for. A pension is not for the present; a pension is for when we retire, and I think it is really important that we keep our understanding and our vision on that goal of pensions. It is very, very tempting to say: Well, it is my money and I can do what I want with it – but, entering into a pension, you are also affecting other people; it is not just you.

So, we already have sufficient provisions in our pensions for people who may have a need to get at their pensions. Sometimes there are very special circumstances for wanting to access funds. For example, life expectancy may be shortened. There are provisions that would allow somebody who would absolutely know that their life expectancy is going to be shortened, allow them to have access to their pension prior to what would be the normal time.

There are provisions for special circumstances, but I think we have to be careful for the good of our society, and also for the good of government; because, the better off people are in their retirement, the better it is for government. Government has less to have to carry, the better our pensions are and the more protected they are.

I will not take any more time, Mr. Speaker. I think I have laid out some concerns that are very important, and we are going to have other pension bills, so I will get to talk to pensions again. I do think we need to be aware, as well, here in the provincial Legislature, of the review that is going on, on the federal level, and I think the ministers are going to be meeting on the seventeenth. I do not know if this is going to come up or not when the provincial and territorial Ministers of Finance meet, but I think the discussions that are going on, on a federal level, looking at pension plans – looking at the CPP and the QPP, for example - are very important discussions. I know that there are recommendations being made in Ottawa with regard to looking at doubling the benefits for the CPP and the QPP. It is something that would require that people would have to put a bit more money in to their CPP or their QPP while they are working, but it actually could really improve tremendously the quality of life for people. For example, if we were to double the CPP, the top monthly benefit would go from $908 to $1,817. That, along with an OAS, would be extremely good for people, especially if they have another pension plan too. So, I think being aware of some of the discussions federally is important for us.

Another thing that is being recommended on the federal level is getting at what some people are calling the poverty gap among seniors. What that means is that we have so many seniors in the country who are living in poverty. Statistics Canada has worked on this one, and Statistics Canada has figured out that, that poverty gap – and I think they are the ones who came up with the term – that poverty gap among seniors could be taken care of in the country, nationwide, and it would only cost around $700 million to take care of. That is not a lot nationwide.

So there are some interesting discussions going on, and I would hate to see either us or any other province in Canada taking steps backwards with regard to ensuring a good pension plan. The minister mentioned what is happening for workers of AbitibiBowater, or past workers of AbitibiBowater and Nortel, and we see the desperate straits that those pensioners are in because of the bankruptcy of those two companies.

So we have proof of how important the pension plans are, and let's be sure that we continue taking steps to protect and to make sure that we enrich the plans that we have. I don't mean, by enrich, more money, but making sure that we protect them by having all the safeguards that we need in our pension plans for the benefit of the future of the people of the Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): The hon. the Minister of Finance; if he speaks now he will close debate.

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

I just want to say to the Leader of the NDP that I had intended to bring information on the makeup of the committee. I had thought that there might be a question about who makes up the committee, and what they do. I neglected to do that, and I am sorry about that, but I certainly will undertake to provide the hon. member with that information.

There is a committee with government representatives on it. I seem to recall the Deputy Minister of Finance is on it, representatives are on it from NAPE and CUPE, I think the nurses are on it as well. So it is a pretty broad based committee, and they have a lot of money to invest. I know they take their responsibilities very seriously when you are talking about investing billions of dollars for the benefit of the people who work for the government of this Province.

Also, with respect to the education of young people, as to the importance of pensions, I am advised that it is still hard to get them to focus on planning for their retirement when they are focused on making their way in the employment market today. I can recall when I was a young lawyer first starting off in Corner Brook, I had representatives, I think it was from one of the insurance companies, who came in to see me to try to talk me into buying an RRSP. I was not interested, and they left my office unsuccessful. I wish I had listened to them. I wish I had started earlier. I have similar conversations with my children, and their reaction to me is the same way that I reacted to Sun Life.

I met recently with representatives of NAPE and we discussed this issue, and we discussed the education of their members with respect to pensions. Because what I am finding is I get letters from many retired pensioners, and I listen to the Open Line shows, and I see stories in the media. There is a lack of knowledge. There is a lack of understanding of what people might be entitled to under a pension plan and where the fix should come from under that pension plan, and that if - obviously, governments cannot fix everybody's pension plan. If everybody who is not a member of a registered plan, that has a Registered Retirement Savings Plan, if that plan goes down obviously government cannot come in and pay money to everyone to pick up their pension. We all have responsibilities, and government's responsibility is to provide opportunities and to provide a safety net for all of our citizens. Obviously, we have to be realistic in what we can do.

I am looking forward, very much, to the discussions that are going to take place in Whitehorse. This is obviously a very important issue for all Canadians. I am hoping that this will capture all Canadians' attention and it will become a major part of public discourse, and I hope the education element will be there so that our debate can be on maybe a better level than it has been in the past.

So with that, I thank hon. members. I will undertake to provide the information in the committee, and I urge passage of this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The bill has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, Order 13.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Government Money Purchase Pension Plan Act. (Bill 56)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Government Money Purchase Pension Plan Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 56)

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

MS BURKE: Okay, as I had jumped the line there, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Order 13.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 13, An Act To Amend The Occupational Therapists Act, 2005. (Bill 59)

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Occupational Therapists Act, 2005". (Bill 59)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment that Bill 59 be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 59 is an amendment to the Occupational Therapists Act, 2005. It is a bill from the Department of Health and Community Services, but for the purposes of second reading for this bill today I would like to take an opportunity to introduce the bill and provide some explanation as to what it is we are hoping to accomplish through this amendment of the Occupational Therapists Act.

Mr. Speaker, an occupational therapist is a person who does occupational therapy. That is defined as the art and science of enabling engagement in everyday living through occupation of enabling people to perform occupations that foster health and well-being and of enabling a just and inclusive society so that all people may participate to their potential in the daily occupations of life. Mr. Speaker, by having that definition certainly speaks to the fact that it is an art and a science and a profession that would probably be the result of extensive training, being able to work with people, to work on their potential to bring that about.

Mr. Speaker, in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador today there are approximately 135 occupational therapists. The amendments that we are bringing forth in the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, are at the request of the Newfoundland and Labrador Occupational Therapy Board. This is something that the board or the people, their professional association feels that is necessary and something that they have asked for as a legislative change.

I would like to speak to the two amendments that we are introducing here today. One amendment repeals section 32.(2) of the act because it contains an obsolete limitation on the practice of occupational therapy. This is something that is obsolete, that is no longer required or probably never has been required. That 32.(2) of the act states, "A person shall not practise occupational therapy except upon referral of a person to the person by a legally qualified medical practitioner or another person authorized by the regulations to make a referral."

This amendment to repeal this particular clause is being requested because it has never been used. It is there in the act but it has not been used. There are no regulations authorizing referrals to occupational therapists. The ability to make these regulations is contained in section 30.(1)(e) and that is also being repealed. That is being repealed for a very simple reason, in that there is no referral necessary to an occupational therapist in this Province. It is not like you have to see your doctor in order to be referred to an occupational therapist or another medical profession or a professional. People who want to see an occupational therapist in Newfoundland and Labrador can be referred, no doubt, but can also self refer and they have access to this type of work in Newfoundland and Labrador. We do not need to restrict the referral process to occupational therapists as it is in the legislation and the regulations as they read right now.

The second amendment that will be in this legislation, Mr. Speaker, allows the board to make regulations about the issuance of different types of licences. What this will allow the board to issue would be a licence to somebody who is not currently practising. That would be a type of licence that would be commonplace in other professions. In particular, people have non-practising licences if they are on parental leave, which could be up to a year in some cases or they are on educational leave, which could be longer than a year.

They do not have the ability right now to issue a different type of licence other than the practising licence. This would give them the ability so that when people who do need to take a leave of absence or are away from their work for some time, they are able to continue their licence and be able to have it reissued as a practising licence when they return to work. This would be common if we looked at what lawyers would probably do or chiropractors do.

The other point I would like to make in my comments regarding these amendments, they were requested by the occupational therapist board and that certainly consultation has been done with that board and we will be able to work with them to bring these amendments to the House of Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have just a few words on Bill 59. Obviously, there is nothing in this bill that would give us any particular concern, Mr. Speaker. Most of the amendments are very much housekeeping items. As the minister said, it came through the recommendations of the Newfoundland and Labrador Occupational Therapy Board.

Mr. Speaker, the board itself was created to ensure that there were safe, ethical and competent practices of occupational therapy throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. I guess, as a responsible board and organization, they will continue to review their legislation to look for areas where things can be changed, tightened or adjusted to meet the changing needs within their professional field. All occupational therapists in our Province, Mr. Speaker, must be registered with this board and it is illegal to practice in Newfoundland and Labrador without actually doing so.

Mr. Speaker, the board does have regulatory powers under their regulations which are aimed at preventing harm to the public by setting compulsory rules of conduct and standards of practice within the profession. Mr. Speaker, the second part of the bill, which the minister just presented today removes provisions requiring referrals to an occupational therapist from legally qualified medical practitioners or others identified in the legislation. I am not really sure, Mr. Speaker, what the implications of removing that might be, but obviously, it was requested by the Occupational Therapy Board as I understand, and maybe when the minister goes into committee on the bill he could provide for me an explanation as why they would want to remove that particular provision from the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists conducted a study that indicates that there is a strong demand for occupational therapists right across Canada, and in particular, in rural areas of the country, especially in provinces like ours in Newfoundland and Labrador. The aging population in the country is the most frequently cited factor that is expected to contribute to the demands being put on occupational therapists over the next ten to fifteen years. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we will see greater numbers of people - I guess what we would call the majority of our baby boomer age group - reaching age sixty-five between the years of maybe 2012-2020, or 2025.

As a result of that, Mr. Speaker, that will put more demands on occupational therapists in the Province because it is when you reach a certain age group more times in your life, you are also reaching a period of your life, a prime period of your life, where you have more chronic and disabling conditions within your life. Obviously, that is when your greatest need for occupational therapy will be.

Mr. Speaker, there is also a thought out there, and actually it was very evident in the study that was done by the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists. That is that governments, not just in our Province, but right across the country, is not doing enough in terms of investing in this sector. In fact, Mr. Speaker, because of government allocations it is felt that it has limited the growth in the public sector. We do have a lot of private operations and private clinics that provide for these kinds of service, but of course the feeling is there that governments have not been stepping up right across the country to provide for more public services in this particular area.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has said that today we have 135 occupational therapists in the Province. I would think if you look at where our baby boomer statistics are and where we are going to go over the next ten years, you are going to see a tremendous demand being placed on this particular occupational field.

Right now, we are in a situation in the Province where there is a lack of occupational therapists. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I remember in the spring session of the House of Assembly and I think all the members will remember when we dealt with the case of a young boy from Central Newfoundland by the name of Lucas Butler. This was a child who lived in the Grand Falls area, who needed to have occupational therapy in order to prepare him for some very important and necessary surgeries that he would have to have over the summer. Because he could not get the occupational therapy services in the Central Region, his surgeries would have to be postponed, because there is a certain amount of therapy that he had to undergo in order to prepare him to be able to have those surgeries.

Mr. Speaker, I remember when I presented that case in the House of Assembly and questioned the Minister of Health of that time, who happens to be the Minister of Business today, he specifically stated - and this is from Hansard - that he was hoping that the situation in Grand Falls and in Central Newfoundland would be resolved in the very near future. That was back in May, Mr. Speaker, and that issue is still not resolved. It is still not resolved. In fact, Mr. Speaker, on July 8, I received a letter from the minister when I was asking for a follow up on this and what was happening that told me that the additional funding for occupational therapists in Central Health, the request had been denied by the government, and that they were not putting the money in to fund this position.

So, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to resolve the issue, it is going to have to start with putting the appropriate resources out there for the public to access. Mr. Speaker, right now, today, I have not really done a survey right across the Province, but I do know in the Central Region, gaps still exist in the system where there are still no occupational therapy services readily available for people who live there. In the case of Lucas Butler, Mr. Speaker, through some supports from the government, he and his family did relocate to St. John's for the period of time that was required so he could have his rehabilitative services that were not being offered to him in Central Newfoundland.

What I found disappointing about all of this, Mr. Speaker, is that when the issue was raised in the House of Assembly, it was with tremendous sincerity that I took the minister's comments. I took his comments to mean that he would indeed be moving forward to address this issue, and that it would be resolved in the near future, as was his exact words. I am disappointed, Mr. Speaker, to have found, in July, when I did follow up on this, that in fact, the position for Central Health, and the funding for a new occupational therapist, had indeed been turned down by the government.

So, Mr. Speaker, there are tremendous value in these services in our Province. They are providing for the medical necessities that many people have out there. We know that the need for these services is not going to go away; in fact, it is going to become greater. As I said, as we get into the next decade in this Province where we have more of an aging population, you are going to find that they will have more chronic and disabling conditions that will require this service. Mr. Speaker, I think it is only appropriate that government look at where these services can be publicly funded and placed throughout the Province so that there is greater accessibility so that people do not have to relocate to St. John's to get that service for a period of four months or six months or eight months, but rather is able to access it in the areas that they are in.

Mr. Speaker, that will conclude my comments, but we have no problems with the amendments in the bill. I have only one question for the minister, which I have already tabled, and hopefully, when he speaks to the bill, in committee, he can address that question.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services, when she speaks now she will close the debate.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for participation in this debate today. We certainly would like to see these amendments go through. They are at the request of the Occupational Therapy Board here in Newfoundland and Labrador. They are amendments that bring this legislation more reflective of what they do as a regulatory association in order to regulate their practice within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I close debate on Bill 59, second reading.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Occupational Therapists Act, 2005. (Bill 59)

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

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

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Occupational Therapists Act, 2005", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 59)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 46, 47, 48, 55, 56, and 60.

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

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

We are now debating Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act.

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

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 4 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 to 4 inclusive carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act No. 2.

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

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 4 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 to 4 inclusive carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act No. 2.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 48, An Act Respecting Condominiums.

A bill, "An Act Respecting Condominiums". (Bill 48)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 94 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 94 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 to 94 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act Respecting Condominiums.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 55, An Act To Implement Labour Mobility.

A bill, "An Act To Implement Labour Mobility". (Bill 55)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 9 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 9 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 to 9 inclusive carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Implement Labour Mobility.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 56, An Act To Amend The Government Money Purchase Pension Plan Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Government Money Purchase Pension Plan Act". (Bill 56)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 11 inclusive.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

During the debate in principle, the Leader of the New Democratic Party asked questions about this committee, that the legislation was authorized. Now, the committee, as I indicated, has been in effect for quite some time. It is called the Government Money Purchase Pension Plan Committee. The employer or the government representatives consists of the Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance; the Assistant Deputy Minister for Financial Planning and Benefits; the Director of Pensions Administration; the Director of Strategic and Human Resource Policy, is the Vice-Chair; the Manager of Pension Benefits; a representative of the Newfoundland and Labrador School Trustees Association; a representative of the Newfoundland Hospital and Nurses Home Association, and a representative – oh, I am sorry. On the non-government representatives, there is a representative from the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union. There is a representative from the Canadian Union of Public Employees, one from the Newfoundland Association of Public Employees, and a representative of the Association of Allied Health Professionals, and also a representative from the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 11 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 11 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Government Money Purchase Pension Plan Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 60, An Act To Amend The Rail Service Act, 2009.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Rail Service Act, 2009". (Bill 60)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Rail Service Act, 2009.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: I move, Mr. Chair, that the Committee rise and report Bills 46, 47, 48, 55, 56 and 60.

CHAIR: It is moved that the Committee rise and report Bills 46, 47, 48, 55, 56 and 60.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

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

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

The Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bills 55, 60, 56, 46, 47, 48 carried without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bills 46, 47, 48, 55, 56 and 60 carried without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bills be read a third time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we would like to call from the Order Paper, Order 2, Address in Reply.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Indeed, a great pleasure to stand in this hon. House today to make a few comments as far as Address in Reply to the Throne Speech.

Mr. Speaker, as many of you know, I got elected in 2003 when this government took office under Premier Danny Williams. At that time the people of the Province made it very clear that they wanted to see change, and change is what we got; change that has been positive, Mr. Speaker, for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; change that is positive from the perspective that the people of this Province had enough of the Liberal government under Roger Grimes and the honourable crowd across the way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Challenge them to get up!

MR. HICKEY: I challenge them. Yes, I will minister. I will challenge them to get on their feet today as the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair challenged us the other day. I challenge her to get up in her seat right now and talk about this. They will not be getting in their seat, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not a peep out of them.

MR. HICKEY: Not a peep, not a word. I tell you, they must be having a bad hair day today.

Mr. Speaker, the last five years, since 2000, have been great years for Labrador. As the Minister of Labrador Affairs, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be a part of this government and the work that we have done in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: I am going to take a few minutes this afternoon and I am going to talk about some of the great things that we have done in Labrador, but not only Labrador, throughout the rural parts of this Province. We are going to start right to the point, and we will start in Southern Labrador. A very important part of Labrador, Mr. Speaker. Southern Labrador is a very important part of Labrador, a very important part.

The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair represents the good people of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. I am happy to report to the people of the Province and the people of the Province who are watching here today, that the investment we have put into the hon. member's district, the brand new school in Port Hope Simpson. A brand new school in L'Anse-au-Loup, and $341,000 just recently, Mr. Speaker, that we put into her very hometown of Mary's Harbour, because there are a number of citizens in that community who do not have water and sewer. I am happy that our government supported the council in Mary's Harbour in obtaining $341,000 so that those seven people out on the point in Mary's Harbour can have water and sewer. This project should be going to tender this winter, and I am happy to report that those people should be able to have access to palatable water and sewer, hopefully by this time next fall.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the amount of monies this government has spent, and funds that this government has spent over the last number of years, and we can go throughout this Province. I want to talk about a number of things today. There is just so much to talk about, but I want to say to you and I want to inform the people of the Province, that since this government took office, in our first project of 2004 to our Budget in 2009, this government has spent $1.88 billion in infrastructure and services in Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Unprecedented in Labrador's history, unprecedented since we became a part of this Province back in 1949 - or since 1927. This is the most infusion of funds that we have ever seen in our history.

I want to go down and talk about some these expenditures, Mr. Speaker. I want to talk about the monies that we have put into a number of different departments, and I want to thank my colleagues here. I take the opportunity to thank my colleagues for their support, and particularly the support of Premier Williams.

When I took over as the Minister of Labrador Affairs, the Premier said to me: Minister, I want you to concentrate on infrastructure in Labrador until we get the infrastructure in Labrador up to the rest of this Province.

I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, we have done more work in five years than was done in the previous twenty-five with past governments. Let's talk about some of these expenditures, Mr. Speaker. Let's talk about some of these expenditures. Let's go down and talk about education. Mr. Speaker, we have spent, in five years, in education, $369 million in Labrador. When we talk about a new francophone school in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, we talk about the College of the North Atlantic, the new facility that is going in Labrador West, and we talk about the new Lawrence O'Brien Arts Centre in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, all of these expenditures, Mr. Speaker, were long overdue - the new school, as I just mentioned, in Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about transportation and works, this is a very important issue for the people of Labrador, and I am so proud to stand here as the MHA, and Minister of Labrador Affairs, and on the eve - over the next week we hope to have this road open to the public. The Minister of Transportation and Works is dealing with this issue right now. Mr. Speaker, in transportation alone we have spent $180 million just in roadwork in Labrador. We are about to fulfill a dream of many Labradorians. We are going to try – well, it is already connected, and the final work is being prepared now on the connection between Cartwright and Happy Valley-Goose Bay; a tremendous feat, Mr. Speaker, a tremendous feat.

I remember back in 1989, when I first was elected to the Town Council of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, we came to the Confederation Building and we talked to the Liberal government at the time. I remember it very well, and I want to mention a number of names here today, but they are not with us now: the late Lawrence O'Brien, the late Herb Brett, the late Harry Baikie, the godfather – we called him the godfather of the Trans-Labrador Highway – the late Hank Shouse.

We had a dream, we had a vision, that we wanted to see a road across Labrador connecting the major centres and tying in with the provincial road system on the island portion of the Province. At the time I remember coming into the Department of Transportation and the assistant deputy minister saying: If you think that this government or any government will build a road across Labrador, you are living in dreamland.

Well, Mr. Speaker, our dream has come true –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: - because of the vision of this government, Mr. Speaker, because of the commitment of this government, because of the commitment of the Cabinet and my colleagues on this side of the House.

The hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair was always great about talking about it, but she was never good about doing it. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, these are proud days for us on this side of the House.

When we talk about issues like health care - health care is a very important issue. This government has spent more on health care than any other government in our history. We have spent, in Labrador, on health care, in five years, some $532 million, Mr. Speaker - $532 million - for the people of Labrador when it comes to health care. It was long overdue. I was just so happy when my colleague, the Minister of Health, was recently in Labrador City with my good friend, the Member from Labrador West, where they made the announcement just last week of the tenders letting for the new hospital complex - a need that was there for years and years and years. I can tell you, the people of Labrador West are going to get a first-class facility and it is going to be paid for by the provincial government, our government.

If you go back a few years in our history, the new hospital in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, under the Liberal government of Roger Grimes and Premier Tobin of the day – the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair was a part of that - I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, they could not even afford a full hospital. We had to get half of it from Voisey's Bay Nickel in order to get a health facility in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, these are great times for the people of Labrador. These are great times for the people of this Province.

We hear the members of the Opposition, and I see none of them are heckling here today. I wonder why? The sound of the silence is deafening, Mr. Speaker, from the members of the Opposition. It is deafening. I cannot hear a whisper across the way, Mr. Speaker.

I hear them talk, and they get up. The member, the Leader of the Opposition, gets up and starts yapping about how this government has not done anything for Newfoundland and Labrador, rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, there is $1.9 billion that has gone into Labrador, and that is a rural part of this Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Not only have we done it in Labrador, Mr. Speaker; we have done it in The Straits & White Bay North. We spent over $130 million in The Straits & White Bay North.

I remember a few years ago, Mr. Speaker, I took the opportunity to get in a car and drive from Deer Lake - this was in 2003 - up to the Great Northern Peninsula. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, it was like riding through a minefield. Truckers had to drive on the wrong side of the road to escape the potholes – the wrong side of the road.

Mr. Speaker, I happened to drive up there just a couple of months ago and there was nothing but shiny blacktop right from Deer Lake to Plum Point and going beyond.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is a strong member in St. Barbe.

MR. HICKEY: Yes, absolutely, a strong member in St. Barbe; absolutely.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: We spent $16 million up there, Mr. Speaker, in roadwork. I can tell you, the former Minister of Transportation and Works and the Member for The Straits &White Bay North took a great deal of pride in ensuring that the roads up in his particular district and along that Northern Peninsula were all up to speed, Mr. Speaker.

Forestry up in The Straits & White Bay North, $17 million - $17 million in forestry; a brand new pellet plant going into Roddickton, a $10 million investment there; municipal infrastructure, $36 million; health care, another $30 million; education, $26 million; business and community development, $8 million, Mr. Speaker.

I can also tell you that the Member for The Straits & White Bay North now, he got a substantial investment out of that – government money, absolutely; Tory money. He came to the minister and said: Boy, I have an idea; put an iceberg plant up in The Straits & White Bay North. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is time that the Member from The Straits & White Bay North let us know how that is progressing, or we can have the Minister of Tourism doing tours through that particular facility. A very important investment, Mr. Speaker, again in rural Newfoundland and Labrador - rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, one of the great initiatives of this government has been the Northern Strategic Plan for Labrador. The strategic plan for Labrador was put in place so that Labradorians, in a collective manner, through consultations, could have input into the services that they so longed in dealing with their issues. I believe that the Northern Strategic Plan for Labrador is by far one of the best, one of the best documents that we have ever produced. It is one of the best strategies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: We have had our challenges, no question about it; we still have some today. You take the people of the North Coast of Labrador, Mr. Speaker – and again, I want to applaud and to compliment my colleague, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the Member for Torngat Mountains, who works tirelessly each and every day for the people of her communities, for the Aboriginal people of Labrador, and indeed the Aboriginal people of this Province. We are making strides, and sometimes it is the little things, Mr. Speaker, that make a difference.

I want to tell a story that happened earlier this year in which the Member from Torngat Mountains, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, wanted to help the seniors in her district. We had just cut the right-of-way of the road between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Cartwright, and there was a tremendous amount of wood, Mr. Speaker, that was by the side of the road. I have to say, because of her initiative, and with the co-operation of the Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Resources, we have been able to ship wood up to Hopedale and Nain. We did get some into Black Tickle. It was late in the season, but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, wood has gone to the people of the North Coast of Labrador so that seniors can heat their homes this winter, so that seniors can have heat in their homes and sustain their heat bill. These are little things but mean a lot to the people in these isolated communities.

Mr. Speaker, the Northern Strategic Plan for Labrador is an ongoing document, it is a plan that is going to continue, it is being reviewed constantly, new initiatives are put forward, but the big thing we found about the Northern Strategic Plan was the consultations. We went out to thirty-four consultations. I attended all of them throughout Labrador so that we got the views of the people, Mr. Speaker. We got the views of the people -

AN HON. MEMBER: We know what they want.

MR. HICKEY: - and we know what they want, absolutely, and that is so critical. We listened to the people of this Province, and we listened to the people of rural parts like Labrador and Coastal Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, great things are happening in Labrador today. As I look forward to the development of the Lower Churchill - and it will happen; it will happen under this Premier's leadership, this government's leadership. I can tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, we will not be giving the Lower Churchill away to Quebec or anybody else, and you can take that to the bank, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Those days are over. We are going to maximize the resources of Labrador and of this Province for the betterment of our Province and future generations, our children and our grandchildren, Mr. Speaker. That is our mandate. That is our dream. That is our vision, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you we will accomplish that in years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about another very important industry in my district, Lake Melville, and that is 5 Wing Goose Bay. While we have seen some challenges, and while the federal government has not lived up to the commitments that they made to the people of Happy Valley-Goose Bay and to men and women that work on 5 Wing Goose Bay, I tell you that lately we are seeing some great interest on behalf of our NATO allies to use Goose Bay in close air support training, tactical air support training. We will know more in the coming weeks, Mr. Speaker, as the plan unfolds, but it looks like 2010 is going to be a great year for 5 Wing Goose Bay and for the base there that employees some 300 members of the Department of National Defence employees, Mr. Speaker.

I also want to stand here today and make comment, just for a second, regarding how distressed I am regarding the strike of the union employees at Voisey's Bay. I met with some of the strikers last week and we had a great chat. As I said to them then and as I say to them now publicly, the Minister of HRLE, Human Resources, Labour and Employment, is certainly available with her personnel to help bring the parties together.

I encourage the Steelworkers' Union and Voisey's Bay Nickel to get back to the table and to start negotiating because, Mr. Speaker, there are people hurting right now because of this strike in Voisey's Bay. The sooner we can get back to the table and start discussions, the sooner I hope that this strike will end.

Mr. Speaker, we could go on for – I think my time is about up, and I am certainly happy to be able to stand on my feet here today and give an update on the many good things, the great things, that we are doing in our Province, and certainly in Labrador. I want to thank my colleagues –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HICKEY: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I hear a whisper; they are indeed alive over there, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to stand here today amongst my fellow colleagues of this hon. House and offer my Address in Reply to the 2009 Speech from the Throne.

Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne government stated, "We are determined to stand strong as leaders in this federation, proud of our achievements and confident in our future." - and "While world leaders worry about the right course to take, we in this province have already demonstrated the right approach that leads from decline to growth. We have charted a course for others to follow."

Mr. Speaker, this government has indeed been a leader and we have prospered from our smart financial decisions and our will as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to chart our own course.

The year 2009 was turbulent for many provinces in our country. The global economic crisis took its toll on many sectors of the industry, many of which have not been seen since the great stock market crash of 1929. This Province was prepared to weather the economic storm, and in early 2009 this government introduced an historic $800 million stimulus plan. Mr. Speaker, unprecedented investments in such infrastructure as highways and bridges, ferries and wharves, hospitals and schools, care homes and campuses, and public buildings and public parks, this government fast tracked projects that created employment and created economic recovery.

Mr. Speaker, a major piece of the puzzle to curb the global economic downturn was an investment of $130 million to the Northern Strategic Plan for Labrador. By invigorating local and provincial economies, we improved our social and economic climate. This government not only put people to work but created work close to home so many had the opportunity to work here rather than travelling far away from their loved ones.

Mr. Speaker, at this time of the year, as we enter the Christmas season, we have the opportunity to pause and reflect on personal goals and what the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has accomplished over the last year; in particular, the Departments of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs role in government's blueprint. Mr. Speaker, I have been the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs for a little over two years now, and in that time much has been accomplished in bettering the lives of Aboriginal people throughout this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: Thank you.

I can say with all my heart, that these last two years have been emotionally charged and gratifying beyond words.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: It was just this past August that we seen this government address the wrongdoing from governments past. In a very emotional ceremony, the Premier, the Minister of Labrador Affairs, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation and myself along with close to fifty former residents, unveiled a plaque commemorating the forced relocation of the people of Hebron. It was this Premier who offered the apology to those who were forced to leave their homes and it was this Premier who took time out to go to Hebron this past summer to be a part of that very historic and emotional event for the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: Mr. Speaker, for those who are not familiar, Hebron was one of Labrador's most northerly communities established in the early 1800s by the Moravian Mission. In my two years in this portfolio, this was by far the most emotional ceremony that I had the pleasure to participate in. It was extremely, I would like to state, Mr. Speaker, that it was truly a very moving moment for me having grown up in a community where people were relocated to, and hearing them talk about their home – it was always home to them. It was very moving and touching, and I was very grateful to be there with them.

Mr. Speaker, I represent the District of Torngat Mountains, a beautiful region of our Province that is made up of breathtaking landscapes and magnificent seascapes. There are six rural communities in my district. Nain, being the most northerly; Natuashish, being the Innu community; Hopedale; Makkovik; Postville; and Rigolet. They are all remote, rural, isolated and Aboriginal. We do face challenges, Mr. Speaker, up in our area, we do. I must say, from the time I have been here this government is listening and we are starting to address some of the issues that they are bringing forward.

This government listened to the people and made numerous investments to help improve the lives of many people living on the north coast. This past March, the Minister of Labrador Affairs and myself travelled to the beautiful community of Rigolet where we delivered a cheque for $30,000 to go towards a women's shelter. This was a community driven initiative, Mr. Speaker, and while we were in the community we announced a further $60,000 to go toward that same project. As well, I was pleased to join the Minister of Labrador Affairs as he announced funding for a new snowmobile trail groomer for Rigolet.

Mr. Speaker, as beautiful as the North Coast of Labrador may be, it is also a northern climate region with long and cold winters. Probably one of the reasons our population is increasing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS POTTLE: One of the challenges facing people living in Coastal Labrador is the cost to heat a home, and Minister Hickey spoke of this just then. When the government released a Northern Strategic Plan for Labrador in April of 2007, we made a commitment to help homeowners by introducing the energy rebate program. This program helped all of Labrador, the north and south coasts, as well as the Straits.

Mr. Speaker, many homes on the north coast are still heated by diesel fuel, and in this northern region access to firewood for home heating can be a challenge. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Transportation and Works, the Departments of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs for all of the work, commitment, dedication, determination, to do the wood project that Minister Hickey spoke of earlier. We were very pleased to be able to do that.

I can tell you that I have had phone calls from Inuit community governments who have said that seniors have called in wondering who initiated this project, very grateful for it. Just this past weekend I went to visit a couple in my community. The elderly man is battling cancer. They are low-income and his brother-in-law was outside cutting up this wood, preparing it for the winter, bringing it into this home. They were ever, ever so grateful.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: I have also had calls from elected officials from the Nunatsiavut government who said they walk the streets and see people out getting their wood prepared for the winter as well, and have offered their gratitude for the service that we did here. So, thank you very much to the departments that contributed to this worthwhile project.

Other initiatives that have happened in my district, Mr. Speaker, over this past year, was the $12 million project that went to Nain. It is called the Trouser Lake project, $7 million was provincial contribution. This project is to relocate a water supply to allow for requirements for extra building lots in their community. This is Nain, the most northerly community and it is a growing Inuit community. We had $1.6 million from the Department of Environment and Conservation on the Hopedale environmental assessment. It was a request that came from the community to do further evaluation of possible contamination left by the former American radar site. We have $1 million from the Department of Education for exterior renovations to the Jens Haven School up in Nain. During one of my visits up there this past fall I saw the new windows and the new siding going on that building. It is looking great.

Some of the smaller projects - and it is not always the big projects, Mr. Speaker, that people appreciate. They really do appreciate the small projects. Some of the smaller projects we had this year was over $80,000 from Labrador Affairs for trail improvements, would go to cutting, rerouting and signage of the winter trail system. We had $21,000 go into Rigolet for their boardwalk project. They claim it is the second largest boardwalk in the world. This is a community driven project. It started by the community getting together and using recycled lumber. It is a beautiful trail and they have put a lot of time and effort into it. It just goes to show that people in the communities, and in particular in Rigolet, are proud strong and determined people. We had over $18,000 toward youth justice awareness that went towards communities in Nain, Hopedale and Natuashish, brought a program to the youth in the area, brought education awareness and it was also an entertaining event, social event for the youth. They thoroughly enjoyed it, being able to do a mock trial and things like that. Hopefully, bringing this program to the youth in the area will lead to a career choice for some of them.

We had $15,000 go to Nain for a playground to be put up outside the primary school. The school can use it for outdoor recreation for school driven activities and then the kids can use it afterwards after school. Another $2,000 for the purchase of recreational and sporting equipment for the Nain recreation committee. We have very many talented youth in our communities, Mr. Speaker, very athletic. Just this past year, we had our first time that Newfoundland and Labrador participated in the American Indigenous Games, and people from my district, the small isolated communities, came back with medals; congratulations to them all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: The recreation director in Rigolet put forward a proposal for a catch program that she wanted to put off in her community, and we gave her $1,000 towards that. Makkovik had $4,000 from the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Program that went to develop the storytelling component to their annual cultural fest, and I must add that annual events and cultural events are something that happens in every community, it is all done by volunteers, it really drives the community spirit, you see the people really pumped and motivated and wanting to participate in these events that happen annually.

We had $6,000 go to the Torngat arts and crafts centre in Nain. This is another voluntary group and it is some volunteers in Nain who just opened up a craft shop and they get to showcase some of the arts and crafts in the area. You can go in and purchase beautiful knitted products, go in and purchase soapstone carvings and you can go in and purchase jewellery. Some great work by a bunch of volunteers in Nain.

We also had $6,000 go into Nain for the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Program, and this was to support their project to help preserve the Inuktitut language by documenting the activities surrounding the commemoration of Hebron and the closing of the mission fifty years ago.

I would also like to thank the Department of Municipal Affairs for their continued support through community enhancement projects for my district. Employment options are low in my district, so sometimes we require and go to the Department of Municipal Affairs for additional funding or funding for community enhancement, and we have always gotten good support there.

Mr. Speaker, I take great pride in my district, and welcome all of my colleagues of this hon. House to visit whenever they can. Several of my Cabinet colleagues have visited the North Coast, and I promise that I will not rest until the entire Cabinet has been to the Torngat Mountains district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: It is vital that we visit our remote towns to see firsthand the challenges faced by communities, which gives all of us a better understanding of what needs to be done to improve the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne states, "…Government is continuing to invest strategically in Labrador and remains committed to improving social and economic conditions in the region in collaboration with all Labradorians, including the Nunatsiavut Government representing Labrador's Inuit people."

I am an Aboriginal woman, and a Nunatsiavut beneficiary, and one of my proudest days as an Inuit was on December 1, 2005 when the Nunatsiavut government came into being, signalling the beginning of a new governing structure for the Labrador Inuit and for the Labrador Inuit lands. On December 3 of this year, as Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, I had the honour and privilege to introduce legislation into this hon. House that will assist in resolving land claims in Northern Labrador and offshore areas adjacent to Northern Labrador and Northern Quebec. The legislation, an amendment to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, will incorporate an overlap agreement reached in November of 2005 between the Labrador Inuit and Nunavik Inuit that resolved their overlapping land claims in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, I have had the privilege to travel to many Aboriginal communities throughout our Province. Over the past year, I have participated in several cultural events, and I would like a moment to highlight a few of my visits. In July, I had the opportunity to travel to Conne River to partake in their fourteenth annual Miawpukek First Nation's Powwow. It was a great, great event. If you ever get an opportunity, I encourage everyone to go down and take part in their powwow. It is an awesome event. They do a great job.

I just want to acknowledge, too, that just last Thursday I went to Our Divas Do Christmas. It was a great event down at Holy Heart. I went because the youth choir from Conne River were performing, and I must say, they really did an awesome job. They did a great job and they are led well by Ms Jeddore. Congratulations to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: As well, I travelled to the West Coast of Newfoundland to the beautiful community of Flat Bay and participated in the Bay St. George third annual powwow. It was truly an enriching experience. I was there and I had the honour of being presented with my own traditional drum. That is a memory I will always treasure. I was also very pleased to be presented with my spirit name. Now excuse me, but I am going to try to pronounce it: Wape'k Qalipu Epit. It means white caribou woman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: I would like to thank the youth for their participation in the selection of my spirit name.

Mr. Speaker, Mi'kmaq people enjoy a rich cultural heritage that is deeply rooted in our Province. In October, I had the opportunity to travel once again to the West Coast of the Island to attend two annual general assemblies. One with the Newfoundland Aboriginal Women's Network and another with the Federation of Newfoundland Indians. This is an historic time for the federation.

The assembly provided an opportunity to highlight the signing of the momentous agreement between the FNI and the federal government to obtain recognition as status Indians under the Indian Act through the creation of a landless band known as the Qalipu; Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band. As an Aboriginal woman, I understand what this means to be able to chart their own course and to create a future that is promising and prosperous. I also especially enjoyed my time with the Newfoundland Aboriginal Women's Network, as I always do. They are a great bunch of women. These strong women have taken me into their hearts in a very special way. Being able to participate in their traditional celebrations and ceremonies is always a deeply moving experience for me.

Mr. Speaker, before I close I would like to offer these words to my hon. colleagues. This government is listening and this government acts. Earlier, I referenced the challenges of living on Coastal Labrador. Mr. Speaker, we all face challenges and this government is doing everything it can to better the lives of all individuals, families and groups in this Province, urban and rural, non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal. I can say that sincerely, being from a community in Northern Labrador, that sometimes when you are up there you think like you are being ignored and people are not paying any attention to you. I have been here for two years and I can reassure the people in my district and the Aboriginal people that this government is listening.

With that, I would like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a very happy and prosperous New Year.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General, that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is 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.