MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today, the Chair would like to welcome some distinguished visitors to the House of Assembly. The Chair would like to welcome the Mount Pearl Seniors Independence Groups from the Districts of Mount Pearl North, Mount Pearl South, and Topsail. The group is accompanied by their co-ordinator, Georgina Smith.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would also like to recognize and welcome Ms Vicki Carbage who is accompanied by her niece, Cecilia Kent, sitting in the Speaker's gallery. Ms Carbage is celebrating her 100^th birthday.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Today, the Chair would like to welcome the following members' statements: the hon. the Member for the District of Conception Bay East & Bell Island; the hon. the Member for the District of Topsail; and the hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.

The hon. the Member for the District of Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House of Assembly today to acknowledge a special lady and a significant event in my district. Victoria Carbage celebrated her 100^th birthday the weekend of March 12, and I had the pleasure of attending a celebration for her on Bell Island. Perhaps what was most significant and uplifting was that the celebration she attended went late into the night and she danced until 12:00.

Mr. Speaker, this inspiring lady was born on year before the Titanic sank, even before the outbreak of World War I. In fact, she was almost forty years old before Newfoundland entered Confederation. After leaving school, she, along with her brother, took over the family business. Upon marrying in 1944, she and her husband, George, opened their own supermarket, which she took an active role in operating for the next forty years.

Vicki continues to live in her own home. While she did not have children of her own, her many nieces and nephews who lived on the island were blessed with Vicki's loving care as she played a major role in raising them.

Vicki has been a volunteer in the community of Bell Island for over seventy years within a number of organizations such as St. Michael's Parish, the Special Olympics, and the Wabana Boys & Girls Club, among others.

Vicki continues to be a kind, warm-hearted, active member of her community, and is widely respected, admired, and adored.

Mr. Speaker, I would like everyone to join me in wishing Vicki Carbage a very happy 100^th birthday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the Mount Pearl Seniors Independence Group.

This is a group that has been serving seniors in Mount Pearl for many years. They have become such a large group, in fact, that it takes multiple days to host them in a tour of the Confederation Building and the House of Assembly.

Aside from coming together to celebrate socially, they also work tirelessly to develop great programs and services for their members. Some of their services include Snow Clearing for Seniors in Mount Pearl, and odd summer jobs, whereby students mow lawns, paint fences, and do other tasks needing attention.

They co-ordinate an annual Flu Shot Clinic with Eastern Health, offer a Foot Care Clinic at the Reid Centre with the VON, an Annual Income Tax Clinic in partnership with the Chartered Accountants of Newfoundland and Labrador, and a Caregivers' Respite Centre that is held monthly.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from the District of Mount Pearl North did yesterday, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the Mount Pearl Seniors Independence Group for their continued success, and wish them all and wish them the best as they continue to do good work in the City of Mount Pearl.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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, I rise in this hon. House today to formally recognize two extraordinary seniors from the District of Humber Valley. These two individuals are Sam and Pearl King who, on a volunteer basis, operate the Food Bank in Deer Lake.

For the past fifteen years since Sam's retirement as Superintendent of Public Works with the Town of Deer Lake, both Sam and his wife, Pearl, have operated the community Food Bank from the basement of their own home. They took care of a community need, and were supported by the community at large.

Recently, the Food Bank moved to a new location at a commercial establishment in Deer Lake. It is still staffed by both Sam and Pearl who so generously give their time to provide this service to others.

Mr. Speaker, recently, I was joined by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Minister Responsible for the Non-Profit Sector and we visited Sam and Pearl at this new location. The minister was overwhelmed by these two special individuals, with their compassionate hearts and efforts on behalf of others. There is no doubt that Sam and Pearl care enough about others to do this extraordinary deed on their behalf.

Winston Churchill once said: You make a living by what you get and you make life by what you give.

I ask hon. members of this House to join me in thanking two extraordinary seniors, Sam and Pearl King, for what they give to others.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to announce yesterday's successful transition of 107 CYFS staff and services from the Western Regional Health Authority to the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services.

The Western Region was the first of four regional health authorities to transfer to our department. The transfer of the other three will occur this year.

Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to be at the Noton Building in Corner Brook yesterday to welcome the staff from the Western Region to the department; all other offices in Western joined by teleconference.

While in Corner Brook, I also released details about the redesigned organizational structure for the department, which focuses on strengthening our core mandate: the protection and well-being of children and youth.

Key elements of the new organizational model include improved administrative and supervisory supports for front-line social workers. For program areas including child protection, adoption and youth corrections, the goal is to have staff work within a standard service delivery team consisting of one supervisor, six social workers, a social worker assistant, and a clerical support person. The model also includes a plan to work towards more manageable caseloads for social workers.

Mr. Speaker, these changes will translate into a more effective and positive system throughout our Province and will ultimately benefit our clients.

Other highlights of the organizational model include the delegation of authority to thirteen child and youth care zone managers from the existing five regional directors which will facilitate increased oversight of cases. This includes dedicated zone managers for both the Innu and Inuit communities. Government recognizes the unique challenges in Labrador and we have committed to developing an innovative service delivery model with the involvement of Aboriginal leaders to incorporate their perspectives.

It also includes a dedicated training unit already announced in the College of the North Atlantic, Stephenville Campus.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's transition marked a significant step forward towards the revitalization of child, youth and family services in Newfoundland and Labrador. This is, however, just one component of the transformation of programs and services which started with our new child protection legislation passed through the House of Assembly last June. This act will come into effect later this year.

The Department of Child, Youth and Family Services has recognized the systemic issues that exist and developed a long-term plan to specifically address these issues, improve service delivery, and ensure a positive transition of staff to the department. Mr. Speaker, the department has a clear vision for the future. We have listened to the concerns staff expressed during extensive consultations and have made the necessary changes to reflect their recommendations. This new organizational model will better support their work, which will in turn ensure the safety and well-being of children and youth in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, this department, which was announced by the current government, goes back nearly two years. It has taken two years for them to bring on-line one of the first segments of this particular department, and I remind you that this is only the very first segment that we are seeing. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it has taken much longer than any one of us had ever hoped it would take when this first came about.

In the meantime, what we have in the Province today is a case where over 90 per cent of risk assessments and plans are not being completed appropriately within Child, Youth and Family Services. We have seen no action by the minister or by the government in dealing with that critical issue that has been pointed out by the Auditor General just recently.

Mr. Speaker, we still have a shortage of social workers in this Province. Right now, we have something like forty-seven vacancies in all of the regional health authorities, Mr. Speaker, and 68 per cent of those vacancies exist within Child, Youth and Family Services itself.

It is interesting though, Mr. Speaker, that the first piece of the department that they set up in the Western Regional Health Authority, from what I understand, has no vacancies. I guess it was an easier piece to be able to bring together, so maybe that was the reason that they chose to do that particular piece of it first.

Mr. Speaker, we look forward to seeing all of the health authorities streamlined. We anticipate, hopefully, that the department will be established in the near future. More importantly, Mr. Speaker, we want to see some action from the government on being able to deal with the critical issues that were highlighted by the Auditor General in his report.

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

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

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. We have been waiting a couple of years now for this. We were so proud when we passed the legislation setting up the department, not realizing how much longer we were going to have to wait for the actual department to be put in place.

I understand the reasons for it taking one segment at a time of the four authorities and making the transition, but I hope that we are not going to have to wait another year or two before all of the authorities are finally giving up their responsibility and all social workers moving into the new department of Child, Youth and Family Services. Until everybody is in place, we still do not have a fully working department.

I am delighted to see the new structure that is coming in place; I am delighted to see that there is going to be support for each unit of social workers. This is something that is much needed and we have been waiting for it for a long time. We all know that the ultimate priority is the children, but we have to have working conditions for the social workers so that they can do their work for the children.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Reflective of the nice prices we received for crab and shrimp this year, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to inform the public and members present of a series of important initiatives that have been undertaken by the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Marine sciences and coastal and ocean management are extremely important to the future of our Province's fishing and aquaculture industries. As such, my department has developed a number of initiatives to attract the interest and support of youth in these important areas.

In 2010, our government announced a commitment of $14 million towards fisheries science research, including the establishment of a Centre for Fisheries Ecosystems Research (CFER) at the Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial University and to charter the research vessel the Celtic Explorer. This investment allows for our Province to conduct its own fisheries research for the first time in our history. It also supports up to twenty graduate students on an annual basis who will be contributing to the centre's research activities.

Mr. Speaker, educating our youth on healthy oceans and sustainable fisheries is a key component of marine conservation. My department has supported youth initiatives including the Ocean Net Youth Conference, Friends of the Beaches Network, Envirothon Newfoundland and Labrador, the Ocean's Day Stream and Shoreline Clean up Challenge in the Bay of Islands area and a World Ocean's Day art contest and family day. We also provided funding for students to participate in the Students on Ice Arctic youth expedition in 2010. The total funding for these projects in 2010 was $40,000.

I am also pleased to report that my department funds two scholarships. We have actually established our own scholarship program of $1,000 a year to encourage high school students to learn about our Province's fishing and aquaculture industries. We also fund the Doctor Wilfred Templeman Scholarship which provides funding of $5,000 to students pursuing a degree program related to groundfish research. We also contributed to two private scholarships in memory of Dr. John Lien and Mr. Sid Hann, on a one-time basis.

Mr. Speaker, the fishing industry is changing rapidly and the aquaculture industry is an important component of the future of coastal and rural areas in this Province. We look forward to continuing to engage the youth of our Province on these very important issues.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Certainly educating and engaging our youth in any industry is important and certainly important in the fishery industry as well. It is a very commendable initiative. I would like to congratulate those graduate students who were involved in the Centre for Fisheries Ecosystems Research and also those who have received scholarships.

The minister makes mention of the Celtic Explorer, and I just cannot let that one pass without speaking to that for a moment. We realize a large component of the fisheries research is that particular vessel. People might need to know or do not know that the vessel was actually only leased for about thirty days or so. I know we had calls to our office for people looking to go work on her actually from Northern Newfoundland and Labrador. When they found out – they thought it was a full-time research vessel – and when they realized exactly what it was they walked away from that initiative.

I have to wonder whether the minister might be somewhat uncomfortable standing and giving this fishery statement today in light of the situation that we have in our industry. It is great to make note of the aquaculture industry – I know it is doing well – but my concern is that that does not become the fishery of the future because it is impossible for that to service the coastal communities of Newfoundland and Labrador.

When we look at situations of the MOU with the ASP and FFAW, we have SPANL, we have communities like Jackson's Arm, Port Union, Englee, and so many other things that are being affected every day by the condition and the crisis in this industry, then I am looking to see, as the people of this Province are looking to see, Mr. Speaker, the vision of this government of how they are going to take the industry forward and how we know that it will be around for years to come as a sustainable industry.

Thank you for this statement, but I look forward to hearing more in the days to come from this government.

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

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

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

Obviously, the initiatives that he has outlined in his statement today are good initiatives and youth should be encouraged to engage in our fishery. We have to look at the fishery and its potential to be a truly sustainable industry, with or without aquaculture, Mr. Speaker.

It would be a great benefit for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians if our fishery were managed properly. I am hoping that our fishery is going to be around much, much longer than oil and minerals and when they are depleted we will still have our strong fishery.

People look to the government for leadership on the fishery, Mr. Speaker. It is really a problem that this government has ignored an 800,308 page MOU that was put in place. It is not the be-all and end-all. Discussion has to continue, but this government has to give the leadership, and putting a plan in place and showing young people that they have a plan for the fishery so that young people can feel confident in going into the fishery, Mr. Speaker. Not just in research, it is wonderful to have them in research, but in all aspects. Why would this government not approve a fair and generous early retirement package for aging plant workers so that younger people can see a place for them in all parts of the fishery, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in a scrum outside the House with reporters, the Minister of Natural Resources grossly exaggerated the rate that energy costs are rising in the Province. The minister claimed that energy costs are rising at a rate of 4 per cent to 6 per cent annually; that is double and triple the real amount, which is just over 2 per cent as anyone can see by doing the calculations on their power bills.

Mr. Speaker, the government wants people to believe that even without Muskrat, energy costs are going up. Well, they are, but they are not going up at 100 per cent plus that they will under this particular deal.

My question today is for the Premier: Premier, why are you grossly inflating energy costs and energy demand in your Muskrat projections?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, we know in this Province that our energy costs are increasing. What I referred to yesterday was the exercise that we had done to determine what the future energy costs would be. That is a modelling exercise. Nobody can say with certainty what the prices will be into the future, but we can estimate what they will be. It is estimated that energy costs between now and the next five or six years will increase about 36 per cent or 38 per cent, 4 per cent to 6 per cent per year for sure, Mr. Speaker, and after 2017, after the period of time when we have Muskrat Falls on stream, we expect without Muskrat Falls they will continue to increase exponentially.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have seen the fluctuation of oil prices in this Province over the last five and ten years, as the minister knows. Even during those periods when oil went to as high as $150 a barrel, Mr. Speaker, we have seen minimal influx in the price of electricity, nothing that would reflect the 36 per cent that the minister claims that we will see over the next five years.

I ask you, Minister: How can you justify your argument, based on the fact that even in the last five years our rates have never increased more than 2 per cent or 2.5 per cent on an annual basis?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of factors that influence the price of electricity. One of them, certainly, is a rate application being presented to the Public Utilities Board, and there has not been a rate application to the Public Utilities Board by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro since 2006, some five years ago; point number one.

Point number two, Mr. Speaker, is that the cost of electricity is also driven by the price of oil. We use international information, information that is used by all the electricity utilities in the world, to determine what the price of electricity will be. The forecasting that has been done indicates that the price of electricity has been increasing and will continue to increase well into the future unless we bring Muskrat Falls in, which will help stabilize the rates.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Even a calculation that we had done by an accountant that looks at from August, 2005 to February, 2011, the rate of increase on an annual basis has never been more than an average of 2.5 per cent. So it is really hard to buy into the argument.

Maybe the Premier would like to stand up, Mr. Speaker, as opposed to chirping from her seat, and explain to the people of the Province why she is inflating the numbers, Mr. Speaker, to the point that we know is unrealistic in this particular deal?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, in terms of the past, there has not been a rate increase. There has been subsidization of the rates. As we move forward, we have to continue to run Holyrood and run Holyrood harder. The demand on the electricity system is increasing every year. That causes us to run the power plant more. The cost of oil is going up, and the fact that we are running Holyrood harder means we have to burn more of the Bunker C, which is why the cost of electricity will continue to increase.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There has not been a rate increase, I guess, because the utility company has not felt the need for one, I say to the government opposite. Under your regime, we are going to see a whole different story; that is quite obvious.

Mr. Speaker, in 1998, when Nalcor looked at building a transmission line across the Island, they budgeted the cost at $2.2 billion. Fast-forward now thirteen years later and the Premier says she will build the same line for $2.1 billion. We know that over that time period steel cost has risen by more than 200 per cent, that is not to mention the increase in the cost of labour and other supplies that go into building the line.

I ask the Premier today: Will you tell us how it is possible to build a steel transmission line across the Province today for less money than it would have cost thirteen years ago?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there has been extensive work done on the development of the Lower Churchill over a number of years, particularly in the last eight years under this government, under the leadership of Nalcor. Mr. Speaker, we used a gaited process that took in a very detailed analysis, we received the best expertise that was available to us in the Province, in the country, and worldwide when necessary, Mr. Speaker. More than that, Mr. Speaker, we have had two independent audits of the methodology used by Nalcor to ensure that the process is as good and the information as good as can be had at this point in time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If they have had all that work done, there is no reason why the Premier cannot stand on her feet today and explain to us why there is such a difference in pricing. We know that steel prices have increased by 200 per cent in thirteen years; we know that the line you are proposing to build is only twenty-six kilometres longer, Mr. Speaker, than the line that was proposed back in 1998.

Now that you have all the research Premier, stand up and tell us why your line is going to be cheaper than it would have been thirteen years ago?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is all over the place. Everything is going to go up. Labour prices are going to go up, commodity prices are going to go up. The only thing that is not going to go up, Mr. Speaker, is electricity. The price of electricity is not going to go up. The demand of electricity is not going to go up. Mr. Speaker, the least we could ask from her is consistency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No answers from the Premier; she is out there trying to sell a big deal, Mr. Speaker, in the Province and she gets up and gets on with such gibberish in the House of Assembly. Very clear, very simple questions, Mr. Speaker; why is it that the cost that you are projecting to build this transmission line is cheaper than it would have been thirteen years ago, Mr. Speaker, given the fact that everything else has increased in cost including the price of steel? I ask the Premier to have a little decency and to stand up and explain that to the people of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if you were to listen to the Leader of the Opposition, you would think that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is going to develop Muskrat Falls for a lark, for an absolute lark, for something to do. Mr. Speaker, we are developing Muskrat Falls because it is the best and cheapest energy solution for Newfoundland and Labrador. We are building it for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: That is why we are building Muskrat Falls.

Mr. Speaker, we have developed a methodology that allows us to do this in the most cost-effective way. Mr. Speaker, we have had those costs and that methodology audited by independent agencies of worldwide reputation. Mr. Speaker, they have given us high marks on the information that we have used and the outcomes that have resulted as a consequence of it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure what lark is doing but I know what their government is doing and that Premier is doing and that is they are jacking up the price of electricity going into every single household in this Province, Mr. Speaker. The Premier, Mr. Speaker, claims they have had all of these audits done; we are asking a very simple question, Mr. Speaker, give us the information. So if you have had it done and you have the information that you can provide to the people of the Province that shows how you, Premier, can build a transmission line today cheaper than you could thirteen years ago, we would love to see it. So I ask you: Are you prepared to table the information?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we have provided information upon information, upon information. We have asked Nalcor to provide information and they have done that in briefing after briefing after briefing. We will continue to do that, Mr. Speaker. The problem is they do not know how to interpret or deal with the information when they get it, but that will not stop us from trying to inform them about this project, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will let the Premier know that throwing insults over here will not stop us from throwing questions back. That is what I say to you, Premier. There are a lot of questions to answer and if you want to stand by your deal, you provide the answer in the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, in the House we asked the Minister of Natural Resources to reveal the cost of the contract to Montreal based company, SNC-Lavalin to design and oversee the construction of the Muskrat Falls Project. Obviously, the minister would not provide the information to us yesterday.

I ask the Premier today: Are you prepared to give us the cost that is associated with that contract that you rewarded to the Quebec company?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have costed Muskrat Falls to cost in the vicinity of $6.2 billion. Mr. Speaker, there is some commercially sensitive information. If the information that the Leader of the Opposition is asking for will not compromise the project in any way, I will more than happily provide that to her.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am assuming it is not commercially sensitive any longer if the contract has been awarded. Anyway, I will wait and see.

My next question is for the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services because yesterday the government did make an announcement. She made a statement in the House of Assembly today about the transfer of 107 social workers from the Western Regional Health Authority to the new Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. We asked these questions yesterday of the former Minister of Human Resources, or Child, Youth and Family Services but we did not get any answers, so we will try it again today.

While the transfer to get the department up and running is important, and we recognize that, we are also aware of the fact that there are 90 per cent of the risk assessments –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS JONES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to.

My question for the minister today is: In light of the fact that there are 90 per cent of the risk assessments and action plans that are not being completed, as pointed out by the Auditor General, what is it that your government is doing to address it?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If there is one thing that is obviously clear, Mr. Speaker, from not only the AG report, because that is information that was not new to us – we did do the clinical service review, that was a comprehensive review of 400 cases; we also have the Turner review – and if there is one thing that is obviously clear, it is that status quo for the services of our children in Newfoundland and Labrador is not good enough.

Mr. Speaker, what we did yesterday was we announced an organizational shift from where we are. Since 2006, Mr. Speaker, we have put 223 positions into the department with little impact on the services. It is not about resources, it is about doing things differently, and that is exactly what we announced yesterday, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We all know, minister, that what you announced yesterday was a streamlining of the department. It was a transfer of human resources from one side of the department into another. It was about putting in place the administrative level, the management level, of what needs to be done.

Let us talk about the front line-level and let us talk about, minister, what your government is doing to address the critical issue that has been outlined by the Auditor General to ensure that proper risk assessments and action plans are now being completed by people who are placed in those positions.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let us talk about what we are doing for the front-line social workers because that is exactly what we announced yesterday: a new organization.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, the previous minister did extensive consultation with all fifty-two offices and what we heard is that they needed more supports in terms of supervisors, more supports in terms of clerical and administrative. Mr. Speaker, exactly what we announced yesterday is a new case load management system in terms of one supervisor to six social workers, and, on a provincial basis, an average of twenty cases per social worker. In line with that, there is also one social worker assistant and one clerical support person so that it is a team-based approach, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the AG report, Mr. Speaker, in January of this year, we did hire six more staff to address the backload of cases to ensure that those FCAPs and those safety reports were being done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that her government also failed to monitor the protective intervention program standards. They failed to regularly review the evaluation for the child care system. This means, Minister, that your government failed to provide the necessary oversight to ensure that the children in long-term protection were safe and properly cared for.

I ask you today, Minister: Can you tell us what has been done to address that particular oversight on the part of your government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition is addressing is the systemic issues that have been in the system, so when she says our government, Mr. Speaker, this goes back a lot longer than our government. If she read the Susan Abell report, Mr. Speaker, she would know that these changes are going to take five years to implement.

In the interim, Mr. Speaker, a lot of work has been done. As I said, we recently hired five people to address the backlog of files –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: Just last month we announced a training unit. One of the things that came out loud and clear in the Clinical Services Review and the Turner report was that training is an absolute necessity. We now have one training unit where we will streamline the training. In the very near future, she is going to hear another announcement around a quality unit so we can check the work that is being done weekly, Mr. Speaker.

I can go on and on with the list of things that have been done in this department over the last two years. So, if she wants to keep answering, I will keep telling her more that has been done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can assure the minister there will be a lot of questions to come. There are a lot of issues in that department. Talking about the Susan Abell report, maybe she would like to share with us the report they did on the Amanda Duggan particular case so we can have a look at that.

Mr. Speaker, the Workers' Compensation Commission has completed an audit on the Department of Government Services' compliance with their own health and safety legislation. Shockingly, Mr. Speaker, what that audit found is that the Department of Government Services and the Department of Human Resources are only compliant with 50 per cent of their own rules.

I ask the Minister of Government Services today: Why is your department only following 50 per cent of your own rules, and is that the level of compliance that is expected or acceptable to you?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, our department welcomes any comments and recommendations by the Auditor General. Our department has fulfilled most of these recommendations throughout the years.

With respect to the question that she has asked today, I would like to check further with my officials and bring back an answer for her tomorrow.

Thank very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is the minister telling the House today that he is not aware of an audit that was conducted within his own department that outlined the fact that 50 per cent, Mr. Speaker, of the rules that are in your department, you are not being compliant with? Is that what I am understanding today, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, that is not the case at all. As I said just a minute ago, I want to get the accurate information before I respond to that type of question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, not only is the department failing to meet their own rules, we have also learned on Thursday that they are getting rid of three co-ordinators who are responsible for safety within the social sector. They include HRLE, Government Services, Health and Community Services, Municipal Affairs, Education, Labour Relations, Government Purchasing Agency, Fire and Emergency Services. So, Minister, maybe you will know the answer to this question.

Given that your department is clearly not compliant with your own rules, how do you justify getting rid of staff who are working on bringing up the level of compliance in your particular department?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the hon. Leader of the Opposition is coming up with this information, but I am certainly not aware of the comments she just made. My predecessor, as well, has said he has never heard of anything like that before, and I just do not know where she is coming up with that type of information.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: So, Mr. Speaker, the minister is standing in the House today and telling us that he is not aware that there are three co-ordinators being let go in his own department who have been responsible for compliance and bringing the department in line.

Is that what the minister is telling us today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I told the hon. member earlier that I would get the information for her, which I will do by tomorrow.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that I am standing here in the House of Assembly questioning a minister of the Crown, asking him if there are three positions going to be let go in his department on Thursday, and he is standing here today telling me he does not have the answer.

That is unacceptable, Minister, and I ask you why you would not know what is happening in your own department?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I say again to the hon. member opposite that I will get the information for her. I would just like to add, as well, that this department consists of over 500 employees, and from time to time people do change offices, things like that. I will get the information for the hon. member and provide it for her tomorrow.

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: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, for decades, the Town of Englee in my district was proud of the fish processing heritage of that town; but, unfortunately, when this government decided to remove the licence in 2004 and transfer it out of the area, it left the community economically devastated and in limbo. For seven years now the council members of Englee have struggled and work diligently to find a new way forward for the town.

In February of 2010, Mr. Speaker, the council of Englee submitted a detailed proposal to Municipal Affairs for the establishment of a cultural interpretation centre. Despite numerous attempts to get this government engaged on this project, the Department of Municipal Affairs has refused to partner with the town citing environmental liabilities.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister today -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to pose his question.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister today: Will they act on commitments made during the election campaign by this government and commit to making this project happen? If not, can he explain to the people of Englee why not?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand here in this House and inform the hon. member that we are fully into the Budget process and all considerations will be given to that Budget process. One of the considerations that I am considering is the one for – is that too many considerations?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: One of the ones that are before me is the one in Englee. Certainly, I will be considering that in the process. I am having a meeting with you next week and we will be discussing that very matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, I consider it unacceptable that you have to consider something that this government has already committed to. That was done during the election campaign, very clearly, in 2009.

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to appreciate the frustration that community has experienced with the drastic changes caused, in the economy, by this government. On January 2011, the Mayor of Englee wrote our new Premier outlining again the town's predicament and pleading again that government would come onside to ensure this project. He asked for a meeting with the Premier.

I am asking the Premier today: Are you willing to meet with the town officials to further discuss government's intentions and willingness? If not, why not? Because they want to get this project moving.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, since early in January I have been travelling right across this Province to various municipalities, to various regions in the Province, meeting with all of the stakeholders, mayors, fire departments, and the same invitation is open to you. If the Town of Englee and the stakeholders in Englee want a meeting with myself and my officials with regard to any of the projects and issues that they have within their community, my door is always open.

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, we have been facing a major shortage of hospital beds because too many people are stuck in acute care waiting for a convalescent bed in a long-term care facility. Government announced that it plans to put such medically discharged patients in the private Chancellor Park facility.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: Is putting these patients from hospitals into the costly private facility going to be the permanent solution to the insufficient number of convalescent beds in the health care system?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the issues that we face in our hospital system is the medically discharged individual being in an acute care bed. The cost of that individual remaining in the acute care bed, Mr. Speaker, is approximately $1,500 a day, or up to $45,000 per month.

What we have done here, Mr. Speaker, Chancellor Park has room available. We have reached an agreement with Chancellor Park to utilize forty beds so that the ultimate level of care patients will transfer into Chancellor Park. In turn, Mr. Speaker, there will be more beds open in the acute care setting. What that will result in is the ability to reduce wait times because now when we have people in emergency, there will be beds to put them in, when people have operations there will be beds to put them in.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very good initiative and one that will go significantly in reducing wait times.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take it the minister is telling us that it is going to be permanent, the use of this private facility. I am not impressed, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the new Hoyles-Escasoni facility, which is a public facility owned by the government, will only provide twenty-six additional long-term care beds for the elderly and convalescent patients.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of hundred people right now needing long-term care in the Eastern region. The situation is so bad that elderly parents are being brought into emergency wards because it is the fastest way for them to access a long-term care facility home care bed.

Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Health and Community Services explain how they are going to deal with the growing backlog that will not be alleviated by the new Hoyles-Escasoni facility or by the private facility, Chancellor Park?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On numerous occasions in this House, I have had the pleasure of outlining the investment our government has made in long-term care facilities: the new long-term care facility in Corner Brook, the new one announced in Carbonear, a new one in Lewisporte, Mr. Speaker, fourteen long-term care beds in Lab West.

Mr. Speaker, we are building facilities in order to ensure that people have a good place to go when they are Level III and IV. We also, Mr. Speaker, will work with personal care homes, we will work with our stakeholder groups with home care, and, Mr. Speaker, we will work with groups like the Mount Pearl Seniors Independence Group to keep them healthy, to ensure that they stay active, that they socialize, as I indicated yesterday, by providing them with a Senior Wellness Grant. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you one thing, it is probably the best $20,000 that this government is going to spend this year.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

The minister is continuing to deliberately ignore the fact that we do not have enough beds. He can talk about all of the money he spent all he wants but we do not have enough beds to meet the need here in this area.

What is he going to do about what have been up to 267 people in need on a waiting list? What is he going to do about that? Because what he has in place now is not going to meet the need and he is not telling us.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I had a very good meeting today with the owner board representatives of St. Pat's, St. Luke's, Agnes Pratt, Masonic Park and Glenwood Lodge. We discussed the situation as it relates to the provision of long-term care beds in our city and general area. There are 990 beds in this area, Mr. Speaker, a number of them supplied by the owner board.

Mr. Speaker, as a government we have to invest our money wisely, the population is aging. This is a reality of life. It is not something that we have created, but, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, this government has spent $256 million over the last number of years in terms of long-term care facilities and services. Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker, of the fact that we have put into our nursing homes in long-term care $122.6 million, $90.85 million into home support, Mr. Speaker. We have put into our system $256 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

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

It gives me great pleasure again on behalf of the residents of La Poile and the people of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou, indeed anyone who uses the ferry service that runs between Rose Blanche and La Poile.

The petition reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, we went through this in this House a multitude of times back some months ago when the residents of Grey River, Ramea who use the service to Burgeo had the same problem. Anybody who lives here in Newfoundland and Labrador knows that our weather is bad enough sometimes in the best of times, but in the wintertime it is particularly bad.

If you are travelling, for example, and you have been up to Port aux Basques for a medical appointment or a shopping excursion, and you have to get back to catch the ferry which goes back to La Poile at 3:30, you obviously have to judge yourself, given the weather. You do that to be safe and prudent. You find yourself on the wharf in Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou, the ferry may be delayed, and you have to wait for her. You cannot get on board to use the washroom. People in those circumstances actually have to go out behind the bushes, behind the rocks, behind the old building that is there to actually look after their human needs. Now, that is just not acceptable in this day and age.

I hope the current Minister of Transportation does not deal with this issue the way the former Minister of Transportation, the Member for Lake Melville, dealt with it. When I raised the issue a few months ago, years ago, actually, for the Ramea-Burgeo ferry, the next day he popped up two porta-potties. Now, that is the kind of human respect and dignity they were shown down there. Here is a couple of blue, no doubt, porta-potties, stuck out on the head of the wharf for people to use in the dead of winter. No toilet paper, nothing else in there, no hand cleaners, nothing. Now, that is the kind of response this government took to a degrading problem. Well, they fixed it there, Mr. Speaker, and I implore the current Minister of Transportation to do likewise and fix it for the people of La Poile.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will address the motions on the paper first, do first reading.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991, Bill 11, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader to have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991, Bill 11, and that Bill 11 be now read a first time.

Can the minister have leave to introduce Bill 11, and shall Bill 11 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991", carried. (Bill 11)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991. (Bill 11)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 11 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 11 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 11 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Repeal The Regulatory Reform Act, Bill 12, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader to have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Repeal The Regulatory Reform Act, Bill 12, and that Bill 12 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 12 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Regulatory Reform Act", carried. (Bill 12)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Repeal The Regulatory Reform Act. (Bill 12)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 12 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 12 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Repeal The Subordinate Legislation Revision And Consolidation Act, Bill 13, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader to have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Repeal The Subordinate Legislation Revision And Consolidation Act, Bill 13, and that Bill 13 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 13 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Subordinate Legislation Revision And Consolidation Act", carried. (Bill 13)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Repeal The Subordinate Legislation Revision And Consolidation Act. (Bill 13)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 13 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 13 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Proceedings Against The Crown Act, Bill 14, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader to have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Proceedings Against The Crown Act, Bill 14, and that Bill 14 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 14 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Proceedings Against The Crown Act", carried. (Bill 14)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Proceedings Against The Crown Act. (Bill 14)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 14 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 14 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 14 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Petroleum And Natural Gas Act, Bill 15, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader to have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Petroleum And Natural Gas Act, Bill 15, and that Bill 15 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 15 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Petroleum And Natural Gas Act", carried. (Bill 15)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Petroleum And Natural Gas Act. (Bill 15)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 15 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 15 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Support Orders Enforcement Act, 2006, Bill 16, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader to have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Support Orders Enforcement Act, 2006, Bill 16, and that Bill 16 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Support Orders Enforcement Act, 2006", carried. (Bill 16)

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

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 16 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 16 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Mandatory Reporting Of Gunshot And Stab Wounds, Bill 17, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader to have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting the Mandatory Reporting Of Gunshot And Stab Wounds, Bill 17, and that Bill 17 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to have leave to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting The Mandatory Reporting Of Gunshot And Stab Wounds", carried. (Bill 17)

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

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 17 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 17 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 17 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move seconded by the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 No. 2, Bill 18, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader to have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 No. 2, Bill 18, and that Bill 18 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act 1999 No. 2", carried. (Bill 18)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 No. 2. (Bill 18)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 18 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 18 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move seconded by the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000, Bill 19, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader to have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000, Bill 19, and that Bill 19 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that this bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000", carried. (Bill 19).

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000. (Bill 19)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 19 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 19 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 19 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move seconded by the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act, Bill 21, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act, Bill 21, and that Bill 21 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 21 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act", carried. (Bill 21)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act. (Bill 21)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 21 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 21 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Medicine In The Province, Bill 22, and I further move that the said bill be now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Medicine In The Province, Bill 22, and that Bill 22 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice Of Medicine In The Province", carried. (Bill 22)

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

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 22 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 22 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 22 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we will return now to second reading of bills on the Order Paper. With that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to call Order 6, and we will continue second reading of Bill 7.

MR. SPEAKER: The continuation of second reading of Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to get up in this hon. House today and consider second reading of Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act. Certainly, I will be giving it some consideration in my closing remarks. It seems like I have that word on my brain here today.

I listened carefully to the hon. members who spoke to this bill yesterday. They certainly brought forward some points in regard to the importance of this bill and all the amendments that are proposed under this bill.

Just to reflect back on that bill, as I mentioned, and my hon. colleagues mentioned as well, these amendments were not just developed within Municipal Affairs itself; they came forward as resolutions, most of them did, at the MNL AGMs by municipalities, by mayors, and by councillors because they are the actual stakeholders when it comes to municipal government in Newfoundland and Labrador. So, we took them back as resolutions from MNL and then we developed them. We looked at their content and also made sure that when we were to introduce an amendment to the actual bill, to the act itself, they would have the desired effect that the municipalities were referencing.

There are a number of amendments that are referred here. Some of them are housekeeping amendments in regard to clarity in the act, bringing red tape down to a minimum, and also with harmonization to other acts that you find right across Canada and right across all jurisdictions.

I just want to point out again, in closing, some of the very important pieces that are here in this act that have been, as I said, put forward by MNL on behalf of their membership. One of them is the pension and group benefits act, which I spoke to yesterday and some of the others members as well spoke to. There are municipal councillors and also mayors who serve long periods of time in the communities that they live in. They really, essentially, serve on a volunteer basis. Very few receive a stipend or any remuneration in regard to that piece of work that they do on a daily basis on behalf of the municipalities and the people who live in them. Sometimes that is lost on people, the amount of work that goes into running a municipality. They are there, yes they are, mainly 365 days of the year, other than when they travel outside of their municipality, dealing with issues and dealing with challenges that make their communities work.

I think that each and every municipality should be given the right and authority to consider investing in a pension or a group benefits package for their particular councillors given the time frame that some of them actually serve in the councils they have been elected to serve on.

Grants and charitable causes, I would like to just touch on that again. I think it is very important that we give that authority to the particular municipality. These are all responsible people who have been elected by the members who live in their communities. They handle their dollars well, and they should be able to make up their own minds whether they have the whereabouts and the financial means to help someone else out. I think that is for them to consider and for them to decide rather than have to come to me, as the minister, and get write off in regard to that piece of work. I know under the amendment that they will have to have two-thirds vote of all the councillors in office in order to do that, and I think that brings accountability and transparency to that piece of work as well.

Minimum property tax has been referenced in regard to vacant land and non-residential buildings on a piece of land. That is a real good piece as well because it allows a municipality to develop really four minimum taxes. Under the Municipalities Act that they have right now, they have one for residential, one for commercial. Now, they will be able to develop another one for a vacant piece of land; number two, with land that has a building such as a tool shed or a wharf on it. That might not be of great value when it is assessed by the assessment people in that now instead of having to pay, because of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador ruling, they will not have to pay the minimum tax for residential or commercial, which could be 50 per cent of the actual value of the land. Now, the particular municipality can develop a minimum tax that would reflect the actual value of that piece of property.

I am giving all these amendments careful consideration, Mr. Speaker, as we go through this and I will be considering them during Committee period. I will be considering any questions that might come forward from the members of the Opposition and my hon. colleagues across the House.

There are other pieces there; the tax sales in regard to somebody who is in arrears in their taxes for a municipality. Now, the municipality will be able to sell that piece of property and not move the actual liens along with the piece of property. In other words, the person who is buying it would not be responsible for any back taxes in regard to that land, the person who previously owned it, it would remain with them. That way, the municipality has an opportunity to actually recover all or some of the taxes that is owing.

I also want to point out as well that if the sale of the land is more than the actual amount that is owed by the municipality, that amount will be taken in regard to the taxes outstanding. The rest will be sent to court and then dispersed to any other parties that have liens against that particular person, that particular piece of property. They will be paid out in due order by the court.

As well, we have response to emergencies; now we are giving the right to municipalities to determine what type of emergency response that their fire departments may respond to. If you have a high angle type emergency, rescues, cold-water rescues or whatever, they will be determined from the municipality level instead of having to come to Municipal Affairs and get that type of okay to go forward.

As well, as was mentioned by one of my hon. colleagues across the House, was the disposal of municipal property. What this does now in regard to disposing is it actually reverses the Public Tender Act where it will be very transparent and accountable in regard to that transaction. Anything under $500, they can go out and actually sell, but over and above the $500 area they will have to go through the tendering process and then take the highest amount in regard to that piece. In other words, it prevents a municipality from selling a piece of equipment for less than its value and it makes them accountable and transparent to the residents they serve.

Municipal budgets, I think that is very important. Right now under the act, municipalities have to present a balanced budget. Now they can actually reserve or have a surplus that will be put into a capital reserve that they can use for future issues and challenges without requiring ministerial approval. The audit of financial statements is quite clear. They would require annual financial statements and they have to be consistent to the standards of the Public Sector Accounting Board.

Mr. Speaker, I have gone down through most of it. Another important one is the report on insurance coverage. It has happened in the past that municipalities did not have enough insurance to offset the replacement value of the equipment they have on their books as a municipality. Now there will be a reporting process where we can evaluate that to make sure they actually have enough insurance in place to address the value if something were to happen to that piece of equipment.

Approval to borrow is also important. As the hon. member, one of my colleagues across the House mentioned, what was happening in regard to their financial accounting process was that some municipalities were entering into long-term leases, and those long-term leases were not accountable under the accounting process. Now they will have to report to, as well, and making sure and ensuring that long-term borrowing financial commitments receive the proper ministerial approval.

Debt collection mechanism; now they can use any type of debt collection process that is available to the municipality to collect their taxes. That is very important as well, because we all live in these municipalities and I believe that all the people living there should really pay their taxes that are due. If you do not, then the municipality has issues in regard to their survival, how they provide and what they provide as services to their citizens. If there is somebody in arrears for whatever reason, I think the municipality should have every chance to recover those taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have really covered most of them. I think this is a great bill in regard to the amendments put forward. I believe the MNL will be very supportive of all those amendments because they really brought them forward in a resolutionary factor on the floor of the AGM each and every fall. I apologize that some of them took a little bit longer than was expected to bring to the floor of the House; but, then we have a lot of legislation that goes through this House. I believe, on average, we have been bringing forward thirty to forty pieces of legislation each and every session that this House has sat since 2003. I do not know what the real numbers are, the final numbers in regard to those pieces of legislation, but there has been a lot of work done in this House when it comes to legislation over the years.

These amendments here in Bill 7 are equally as important as all of the other pieces of legislation and amendments that we have brought forward in the past. I certainly welcome any other comments that my hon. colleagues may have, or questions, in regard to this particular act when this goes to committee stage.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think I have covered most of everything that needs to be covered on closing. I will take my seat in the House of Assembly and wait and see if there is any other further clarification needed when we go to committee stage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 7)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 7 has now been read a second time.

When shall Bill 7 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MS BURKE: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 7)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Order 7, second reading of Bill 8.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, Bill 8, An Act To Repeal The Law Reform Commission Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 8, An Act To Repeal The Law Reform Commission Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Law Reform Commission Act". (Bill 8)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to introduce Bill 8, An Act To Repeal The Law Reform Commission Act. The Law Reform Commission Act was enacted in 1971. What it did, Mr. Speaker, it created a body known as the Law Reform Commission for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that even though the act was enacted in 1971, no commissioners were appointed until 1981, ten years after the act was first enacted. It was not until 1981 that the Law Reform Commission of the Province commenced its activities.

Mr. Speaker, the Law Reform Commission was established to inquire into and to consider matters that relate to the reform of laws in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The law commission could do that on its own initiative, to do research, to do studies, consultations. It was a body whose prime responsibility was to do the groundwork, preparation and consultation leading to law reform in the Province. In addition to acting on its own initiative in this respect, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice could also refer matters or any subjects to the commission for further study.

Mr. Speaker, the making of laws is often a tedious and laborious affair, activity. It involves a lot of deliberation, a lot of consultation, a lot of toing and froing with respect to the use of proper wording, with regard to interpretations, with making sure provisions are properly worded so that the proper interpretation that is intended is given. They are not made easily, and they are not made quickly.

It is not always an innocent, exciting process, either, Mr. Speaker. In fact, it is said that there are two things that you should not observe in the making. One is sausages, and the second, the laws. So they do not have very good company with respect to interesting accomplishments, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Law Reform Commission were appointed by Cabinet, by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and they were appointed for three-year terms, of which terms were renewable. They were not obliged to present an annual report, rather, they reported on matters as they deemed advisable, based on the progress of the work that they had done, or they reported when they were requested to do so by the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, the Law Reform Commission did some good work and provided some good reports and good information. A lot of it, Mr. Speaker, found its way onto the floor of the House of Assembly. They published some significant papers over the years. Papers on issues like the limitation of actions, for example, on advance health care directives. Joint tenancy was another one they reported on; enduring powers of attorney, Registration Of Deeds Act, Mechanics Lien Act. So they did a lot of papers and working papers and studies over the years, Mr. Speaker. In fact, resulting out of the work of the Law Reform Commission, the Province did enact two laws: the Limitations Act in 1995, and the Advanced Health Care Directives Act in 1995 as well, directly as a result of the work of the Law Reform Commission.

The Minister of Finance had provided the funding for the commission, on the request of the Minister of Justice, out of general government revenues. So, basically, Mr. Speaker, the Law Reform Commission sat for about ten or eleven years, from 1981, when the first commissions were appointed, until 1992. In 1992, Mr. Speaker, in the Budget Speech, the Finance Minister of the day, the hon. Hubert Kitchen, announced that government would no longer be funding the Law Reform Commission because of fiscal restraint.

The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, was not the only Province to do that. As a matter of fact, between 1983 and 2006 there were five jurisdictions, including the Government of Canada, that ceased funding with respect to law reform commissions. Prince Edward Island disbanded its law foundation in 1983 and the PEI Law Foundation is now responsible for reform activities. New Brunswick disbanded its law foundation in 1993 and the Legislative Services (Branch) of the provincial government's Department of Justice is now responsible for reform activities in that Province. Quebec enacted legislation to create a Quebec law reform institute in 1992, but to date that statute has never been brought into force. The Government of Canada disbanded its Law Reform Commission in 2006 due to fiscal restraint.

Mr. Speaker, the other provinces which have law reform commissions are in a little bit of a different situation, like the Province of British Columbia, for example, and Alberta. They have law reform commissions, Mr. Speaker, that work in tandem with the law schools in their jurisdictions. For example, the Province of British Columbia works in tandem with the University of British Columbia law school, Alberta works with the University of Alberta, and Saskatchewan with the University of Saskatchewan – with the law schools in these provinces. That provides these commissions, Mr. Speaker, with access to academics, scholars, legal specialists, and so on.

Mr. Speaker, in this Province the last appointments were made to the Law Reform Commission in 1990. They would have been made for a three-year period. Since they were not reappointed, Mr. Speaker, they would obviously have expired three years thereafter.

AN HON. MEMBER: Never got a letter.

MR. F. COLLINS: It is my information, Mr. Speaker, that my colleague, the current Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, was at one time a member of the Law Reform Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, even though the government of the day in 1992 did disband the Law Reform Commission, they did acknowledge the importance of ongoing law reform. Law reform is an ongoing process and continues, and the government of the day acknowledged the importance of these issues. What they did instead of funding the Law Reform Commission, they continued funding for a dedicated staff person attached to the Department of Justice who would be responsible for the ongoing issues of law reform.

It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that at that time the Executive Director of the Law Reform Commission, who had been the former Executive Director of the Law Reform Commission, was brought into the Department of Justice at that time for the purposes of pursuing law reform issues. That person, Mr. Speaker, initiated justice policy initiatives within the Department of Justice and his responsibility was to address emerging issues in the Province with respect to law reform. His obligation also, Mr. Speaker, his jurisdiction was to encourage input from groups like the Law Society of the Province and the Newfoundland branch of the Canadian Bar Association.

As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, the process of law reform is ongoing. The Department of Justice continues to conduct law reform activities to this day. In my department alone, justice officials actively carry out justice policy initiatives and they address reform issues which include ongoing legislative reviews of the some 100 pieces of legislation we are responsible for in my department. The same can be said, Mr. Speaker, of all my colleagues, ministers as witnessed today and the last few days by the hon. House Leader as she introduced bill after bill in this House.

Today, as a matter of fact, just from my department alone, I think there were probably seven or eight new bills, new pieces of legislation coming before the House. So the whole business of law reform is ongoing. These bills, Mr. Speaker, these laws range from bills such as the one we are talking about today, Bill 8, which is really a housekeeping bill. They range from bills like that to very significant pieces of legislation; for example, in last spring session of the House my department introduced the Human Rights Act to replace the old Human Rights Code, which was a very significant piece of legislation which will govern human rights activities in this Province for the next twenty-five years. Very shortly, Mr. Speaker, we will be introducing the Corrections Act which is also a very significant piece of legislation that will be brought before this House.

The process of law reform does not stop just because the Law Reform Commission of this Province was disbanded as indeed it has not stopped in other jurisdictions as well.

Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Justice I meet annually with members of the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Newfoundland branch of the Canadian Bar Association. We discuss a number of justice issues including law reform. They bring to my attention, the attention of my department, things that they observe in the legal fraternity and in the administration of justice that they would like to see changed or amended or improved upon.

A lot of these issues that are discussed at these meetings, not only in my meetings, Mr. Speaker, but in meetings that the Ministers of Justice before me have held with these associations have found their way to the floor of this House. The Department of Justice has a good working relationship with these organizations and will continue to discuss law reform with them. From my part, I certainly intend to keep the door open for dialogue with these associations and these groups in the interest of ongoing law reform in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada mentioned earlier that they disbanded its Law Reform Commission in 2006, again due to fiscal restraint. What happened, Mr. Speaker, Justice Canada now provides funding to a body known as the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. That is a body, Mr. Speaker, that provides a unique forum that brings representatives from federal, provincial, territorial governments together, along with judges and members of the private Bar, academics, law reformers, to discuss legal issues and produce quality reports that eventually lead to law reform. These reports and papers are delivered to all of the jurisdictions in Canada. Again, these reports, as I mentioned, will find there way, in a lot of cases, down to the floors of the local Legislatures.

Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, is a member of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada and, as such, can contribute annually to the law reform activities of this organization.

Mr. Speaker, with the elimination of the Law Reform Commission, as it was disbanded in 1992, the Uniform Law Conference of Canada that I just referenced fills the gap. It fills that gap and has become one of the primary engines, Mr. Speaker, for driving law reform in this country. The Uniform Law Conference of Canada has produced and continues to produce a significant body of work that is of immense value to this country and to this Province.

Mr. Speaker, even though the Law Reform Commission of this Province was virtually disbanded in 1992, law reform in the Province is alive and well, as witnessed by the activities of this House today. As well as the initiatives of the various government departments in enacting new legislation and new initiatives combined with the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, the process of law reform is ongoing.

Mr. Speaker, having said all of that, the Law Reform Commission Act remains a law of this Province even though the Law Reform Commission Act has not been active in the Province since 1992. Accordingly then, this government proposes that the Law Reform Commission Act be repealed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I have just a few words on the Law Reform Commission Act. There are basically two sections here we are dealing with today in Bill 8. It is pretty straightforward. One says what the name of the act is; it is called the Law Reform Commission Act Repeal Act. The second clause of the bill says, "The Law Reform Commission Act is repealed." If one were to read on the surface, of course, anybody who is not familiar with how these bills work, they would say: Well, what is that all about? You have a two-liner in the piece of legislation; it is pretty short and sweet. I am sure my buddy, Joe, would have a problem with that one.

We take the minister at his word. He has given a very good explanation of why he is proposing to get rid of the old Law Reform Commission Act. We had it, basically, and we did not make use of it. From 1971, when it was created, to 1981, nothing was done with it. From 1981 to 1992, it was a bit active, but not overly active. We had some good work come out of it during that period of time. Then, it fell into disuse. It probably would have continued; however, because of the fiscal restraint, as the minister alluded to in 1992, the funding was cut to the commission, as was done in many other jurisdictions in this country. So, it was no longer followed up on.

I got a bit of a shock when I heard the minister say, though, that the current Minister of Finance was a member of it but he is expired. I am sure he has not expired, we see him here every day. He may have expired in that role, but he is certainly here with us today.

My only questions – and I raise these in second reading because that gives the minister an opportunity to give us an answer by the time we get to the Committee stage. There is nothing earth-shattering here. I know the minister consults on an annual basis, as do all Justice Ministers and Attorney Generals with the Law Society, for example, usually on an annual basis at least if not more often, to decide what issues are current in our Province and decide if there are any suggestions or any issues we need to address by way of legislation and so on. I am just wondering, notwithstanding those consultations which are an annual thing between the minister in his office and the Law Society, did the minister specifically consult with the Law Society as to what do you think of us repealing the Law Reform Commission Act? Also, the Canadian Bar Association which we have in this Province, or members of the judiciary, they would often be at least consulted on some of these things and have input over the years.

I am just wondering, just for a comfort level if nothing else, when these members vote here, if we know that the minister just did not take it upon himself to say we are going to get rid of this, albeit it is very legitimate reasons, just to know that he did indeed consult with these bodies. We would not want a situation where we did something only to find out tomorrow or the next day that members of the Law Society said: Well, that is pretty rude. They are going to make a major change, withdraw the Law Reform Commission Act, and pass a piece of legislation and never even ran it by us. So, just to know the answer to that, I guess, for a comfort piece would be good.

There are other ways. It is unfortunate that we do not live in a jurisdiction that has a law school. I am quite familiar with what the minister says, for example, in UNB, which was my alma mater; there was quite a co-operation there between levels of government, the academia within the law school, to deal with these issues. That makes it more front burner, shall we say. You have the academic people to call upon when you get into these major issues like human rights amendments and human rights codes, for example, which we do not have here. That is another reason, I guess, that it never ever fulfilled what its true destiny was supposed to be.

A lot of our laws today, we do not deal with the major - other than the Human Rights Code, which as the minister can attest to, it took years and years and years of review, consultations, to get to the point where we brought in the new Human Rights Code into this House last year. That took years to get that done. Most of the laws now in the Province, quite often, are responsive laws. If something happens in society, it is pretty widely known and accepted that we need a law to deal with it and we deal with it. For example, snowmobile regulations, if something happens regarding snowmobiles, accidents on trails, people not wearing helmets, people protest, it gets known through the social media as being an issue, government responds.

We had it, for example, in Sunday shopping, years back. We had it in the case of smoking laws; we are dealing with one of the smoking laws here in the Province in this session actually. We dealt with it and will deal with it again later today.

So, a lot of these bills are responsive. There are some times when government has promised to do stuff as well that they do not do, for example, whistle-blower legislation. We know that the government of the day promised to do the whistle-blower legislation back in 2007, on the eve of the election; did not do it in 2008, did not do it in 2009, did not do it in 2010, and this is the last session before this session ends and there is an election in October. It will be very interesting to see if they are going to keep that commitment, and that is a case where they did say we will bring in a law. You do not need any reform to it; you just need a new one. It will be interesting to see if the government actually proceeds with that particular piece of legislation.

Other than those comments, Mr. Speaker, it is a consultation piece. I am assuming that by saying the Law Reform Commission is no longer going to exist, albeit it did not function, who is doing that type of work now? Is there much consultation, other than the annual meeting, between the Law Society and the minister? This will, as per no choice, have to be dealt with by lawyers in the Department of Justice. I am not saying we disagree with it, but we would just like to have a comfort level of knowing where the minister and who the minister consulted with in order to come to the conclusion that we should now at this time do this.

It is easy to say we have not used it; therefore, we should get rid of it. Is it a possibility that we should have used it and it only ever stopped because we did not have the proper funding to do it? Was any consideration given to that possible option? That yes, it was a valuable tool, yes, it could do what we need to get done in terms of law reform, and yes, we ought to give some consideration to funding it again. Was that looked at or was it just a one-option deal where we said, no, we have not used it, we do not need it? Because maybe there are lots of people in this Province - maybe the Law Society would be quite interested in having a Law Reform Commission. Maybe the judiciary might be quite interested in performing and continuing with the Law Reform Commission, but they have not because it has not had the funding, therefore it has not existed.

That is why the consultation piece is so important, because if you just assume - and you know what they say about assumptions and what is ahead of you and me. If you make certain assumptions and you say, well, we do not need it because we have not used it. Well, the reason we have not used it is because you never funded it, and because you did not fund it, nobody was interested in going on it. Does that mean we do not need it anymore? I would like the minister to address it in that context too, because that is a pretty easy answer and a pretty easy justification to get rid of something. To say we have not used it, so therefore we do not need it anymore. Maybe it is a valuable tool. I always thought it was a valuable tool.

The Minister of Finance over there indicates that it did some great work. He was certainly a member of it back in the 1980s. The only reason it ever stopped was because of the funding. So, I would just like to know, in the context of consultation, what it was the minister did to determine that eradication by way of repeal was the right choice rather than consulting with people to say: If we were to fund this, if we were to keep this going, would it be a valuable tool to our system? Even any cost analysis approach as to what would it cost to do it? Because I do not think it is legitimate just to look at it in terms of cost.

I cannot imagine that having a Law Reform Commission – who is to say people would not be prepared to do it voluntarily? Was that option ever fleshed out? I do not mean for the minister to tell us: Oh yes, I chatted with the Law Society or the president of the benchers over coffee one morning and we did not talk about it, so therefore I assumed it was not good enough. I would like to know specifically if the Law Society particularly asked: What do you think of the Law Reform Commission? Do you think it is a valuable tool? Do you think we should keep it? Even solicit your members to find out what you think we should do and the judiciary, because just saying to get rid of it because we have not used it for twenty years is not a valid answer when the reason we have not used it is because governments have not funded it. I think that is a pretty legitimate question. Other than that, if that is acceptable by the law societies, by the judiciary, by the legal aid commissions, by the people in this Province - even the professors, for example, at the university, a lot of these people have and want input into our system of justice. You do not have to be a lawyer just to be concerned about what the laws are. You do not have to be a judge just to be concerned about what the laws are.

It goes beyond consultation with those who partake of the legal system by working in it. What about the John Howard Society? What about bodies like that who might have had some input if they knew that government was prepared to consider that we can make some funds available or we would even like to continue it, but let's get it reactivated? There are lots of political associations around that might be inactive for years but that does not mean you get rid of them. You bring them out of the closet, you beef them up again and away to go.

I am just wondering, what focus was put on the evaluation of the merits of the Law Reform Commission? It is very easy to say we have not used it, sweep it under the rug, or throw it in the garbage can. We would not know anything about it here in this House of Assembly. We would not know if the minister had consulted with anybody because we did not even know he was thinking of getting rid of it until he brought in Bill 8, and then we are told we are going to repeal it. Nobody in this House of Assembly would have known about that. I am just wondering who else in this society of Newfoundland and Labrador would have been consulted by this minister about it? What options were looked at, and so on? I would like some specifics, not just general answers about: Oh yes, we talked to several people. I would like to know what groups in particular the minister talked to in order to come to the conclusions that he did because that is important to know. If we are going to stand up here, not that we do not take the minister at his word, we certainly do, but taking someone at their word and having the information from them directly as to how they came to the conclusions that they did is always so much more comforting.

We have had cases in this House of Assembly before where you rely upon people and you find out after the fact that the facts are not the facts. I will give you a perfect example, and that is Abitibi, of course. We came in here, Mr. Speaker, and because we were told to take everybody at face value we did not raise the question. We found out after the fact, we had a paper mill we did not want and so on. There were consequences to our actions that we took here. In fact, it cost the taxpayers of Canada somewhere to the tune of $130 million because of that, and we cannot, no matter what the bill is, if it a Law Reform Commission Act we are talking about or whether it is an expropriation bill, or whatever the bill might be, we have an obligation as members here to ask these questions.

I am sure there are people there who never, ever knew the Law Reform Commission existed, but that does not excuse us from having to ask the questions about: What is it, and why are now proposing to get rid of it? I have been down that road. I took this government at its face once before, it did not work out the way that we thought. I am not saying it was deliberately misleading. I do not think the government did, actually. I just think the government told us what they knew at the time about Abitibi. The problem was they did not know what they should have known. They can only tell you what they knew. It was only later that we found out we acted in such haste that we made mistakes. The Premier admitted it here, the former Premier admitted it. The current Premier, who was the Minister of Natural Resources, stood up and admitted it at the time. We have to avoid those kinds of incidents.

Again, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice, if he gets an opportunity, I am sure he will. We can either go back and forth in second if he wishes - usually that is done in committee, it is pretty straightforward. There are only two clauses to debate in committee. It says what it is and it says we are going to rid of it.

I will take my leave at this time, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to the minister, once he has an opportunity, to provide the information that has been requested.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am glad to have the opportunity to stand and speak to Bill 8. I have to say that when we received this bill last week here in the House and I looked at it, I had to ask: Well what is this all about? What is it that Bill 8 is repealing? In the information that we received in the bill, there really was no explanation. It was a bill to repeal and the explanation that was given was that the Law Reform Commission Act was being repealed. Obviously, we had to do some digging in the couple of days that we had between receiving it and now standing to speak to it. That is when I learned the bit that I do know now about the Law Reform Commission. As the minister said, a commission that had been in place and that was cut from the budget by government in 1992.

I understand that right across Canada there were a number of commissions that languished in the 1990s. Some of them funding was lowered, some of it funding was stopped altogether, some of them commissioners just stopped being appointed, and some of them sort of died a slow death because of that. What we have here today is a government saying that happened here except it did not languish; it was actually just cut from the budget almost twenty years ago.

Since then, government has, through the Department of Justice, really had the responsibilities that the Law Reform Commission had. It seems to me the Law Reform Commission had an important function to perform because it considered the state of laws that were made; made recommendations and proposals for legal changes or restructuring of laws that we had here in the Province. The Law Reform Commission also went into revising versions of confusing laws, preparing consolidation of versions of laws. They did quite a bit of work that was related to what government was doing because it had to do with the laws that government was making or laws that government had made. It was an outside body that was taking a look at those laws and was involved with government in the discussion of those laws, and then in making decisions about recommendations of how these laws needed to be changed, or redrafted, or repealed or whatever.

The minister has said to us, and I certainly accept it and I know it happens – that the Department of Justice and the minister do consult with the Law Society here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It would seem to me that consulting with the Law Society would be different than having a Law Reform Commission that is appointed by government with a very particular focus, for nothing else but to look at laws and to deal with those laws. It is a big difference between that and having consultations with the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador.

While I am a layperson, certainly when it comes to legal issues, but as a layperson, I do have questions about the fact that we do not have a Law Reform Commission. I know, as the minister has said, that the Province is a member of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, which was an initiative of the Canadian Bar Association back in 1918. Certainly, the Uniform Law Conference of Canada does look at laws of the provinces and the territories, and, where appropriate, federal laws as well, but it still does not have the same direct relationship to the Province that a law reform in the Province would have.

So, I do have questions. I heard my colleague, the House Leader for the Opposition, raise questions, and I have some of the same questions, maybe worded in a different way. It seems to me that a Law Reform Commission, while it is appointed by government, is an independent body and it has a much larger measure of independence and objectivity than an in-house department does. So, the ministry certainly has expertise – the ministry has legal people who are part of the Ministry of Justice, but the ministry itself is part of government. So it seems to me that the Law Reform Commission, when looking at laws, might have an even more objective position than people who are working inside of government in the ministry.

So, that is one of the concerns that I have; that who monitors the legal heads, the legal minds that are inside of the Ministry of Justice, and that is what a Law Reform Commission is all about – being outside with, I think, a broader vision. Also, all ministries are affected by the political reality of just being a ministry. There are ways in which ministries are affected by whoever is in government, and that would be my concern, that you have political realities that also affect the notion of independence and objectivity. That gives me concern as well.

Now, I know the minister has said we have done without it since 1992 – so we are talking nineteen years – but does that mean we did not need it? That is the bottom line. Does that mean we did not need it?

I would like to know, and I know this has been asked by the Opposition House Leader and I am asking it as well: What exactly was the consultation? I did do some digging and through my office we did do some talking with people on a national level as well in terms of looking at some of the other provinces. In some places where the commissions were dropped in the 1990s they have been brought back. For example, both Ontario and British Columbia are examples of places where commissions have been revitalized. I do know, at least I have been told in the discussions we have had, that you had groups like law societies, non-governmental organizations who are dealing with justice issues, as well as governments themselves looking at the issue and saying: We do need to have a law reform commission back in place.

I am a bit surprised that we have this coming to the House and we do not know if widespread consultation took place. We have a lot of groups in the Province for whom something like a law reform commission would be important. Was there a broad consultation? If there was, it was not public. This government has been priding itself over the last few years on its public consultations, but I do not remember hearing any kind of a public consultation in relationship to whether or not we need a Law Reform Commission.

In speaking to some people who are dealing with commissions, they do think that independent commissions provide a unique perspective from the outside, as I have said. It is not just that there is a sense that what is happening inside of a ministry is not right or what is happening inside of a ministry is not objective. With an outside body like an independent commission you do have a unique perspective. They are not inside of the operations; they are outside looking in. With any issue, the observations of somebody outside of a situation always bring a different perspective. It would seem to me that I would agree with those who have said to me that a law reform commission does that. As some people have said to me who are involved with commissions, in-house government reviews really cannot duplicate the work that a law commission does. I find that very interesting.

I am sorry that instead of having a consultation – a broad consultation, not just the ministry talking to the Law Society, but a very broad consultation of many groups that are concerned about legal issues in the Province, that are concerned about how are laws are made, that are concerned about maintaining our laws in a way that is there for the good of the people. There are many organizations and individuals who have that concern in the Province.

I am really sorry if we have this decision being made by government and being made without that kind of a consultation, then I am not happy to be repealing the legislation. I would rather like to see a real consultation done. Of course, our process here in the House of having to deal with a piece of legislation after it has been done, the decisions have been made by the minister, and the government says this is the way the piece of legislation is going ahead and we only have the opportunity to stand in the House and do what I am doing right now. We were not even involved in any kind of discussion or consultation, which is something, that, of course, I would like us to do in this House, to be able to sit together and really work on pieces of legislation together, which we do not do. I do not consider what we do, that, unfortunately.

While I am getting the opportunity to put my concerns out and to ask questions, I know that there is going to be no change to the decision to repeal. I find that very sad, Mr. Speaker. Policies that are developed inside of government, that is good. Government has the right and the responsibility to make law and to make regulations and to continue to be in a process of change, but inside of government is not where all the wisdom is, and that is where a Law Reform Commission comes in.

Mr. Speaker, I am so sorry that we are not following the lead of the provinces that still have law commissions, some of whom brought them back: Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia. I would like to say to the minister, Mr. Speaker, that I really do not think that they have Law Reform Commissions just because they also have law schools, I really do not think that. Having law schools certainly adds to the benefit of a law commission, but having law schools, I do not think, is the reason why there are Law Reform Commissions in these provinces.

I, too, would like to hear from the minister more information about the consultations. I mean, unless I have been missing the boat, I do not think it was a public consultation. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there are more points to make, only to say that I am not happy with the repealing of a commission without there having been a widespread consultation really giving us true justifications and reasons for why we should not have a Law Reform Commission.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to rise today to take a few minutes to speak to Bill 8, An Act To Repeal The Law Reform Commission Act. As mentioned by my hon. colleagues, this is a fairly straightforward piece of legislation that would repeal the Law Reform Commission Act itself.

It would be interesting and worthwhile, Mr. Speaker, to take a few minutes today to talk about the Law Reform Commission Act, a little bit about its history, where it came from, and how we have reached where we are today. This law was first enacted in 1971 and the idea was to enable the creation of a commission to inquire into and consider matters relating to the reform of the law in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, what I have learned is that even though the act was brought forward in 1971, there was actually a ten-year period that passed; it was 1981 until anyone was actually appointed to the Law Reform Commission. In 1992, just a short time, eleven years after that the commission was disbanded by the government of the day, officials within the Department of Justice were then tasked with addressing emerging issues relating to law reform.

This is the process that continues to exist today where staff officials in the Department of Justice who are tasked with law reform continue to work on law reform, also in consultation with other departments. So, if new laws are emerging in other departments in government, it is quite regular that the Department of Justice and the staff engaged in law reform would work with those departments in bringing forward the new legislation.

It was in 1992, actually, in the Budget Speech where the government of the day announced it would no longer be funding the Law Reform Commission and that was due to fiscal restraint. That is very similar, Mr. Speaker, to the Government of Canada who, in 1996, disbanded the Law Commission of Canada for very similar reasons; however, Justice Canada continues to provide funding to the Uniform Law Commission of Canada, which has been referenced here in this House today, whose organizations include representatives from all provincial Departments of Justice whose mandate is to include law reform activities in the form of uniform statutes, which are adopted and recommended for enactment by relevant governments in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, what takes place today, when it comes to law reform, is that the Department of Justice in Newfoundland and Labrador participates in the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. The Uniform Law Conference of Canada was first founded in 1918. The Uniform Law Conference of Canada operates in two sections: one being a criminal section and the second being the civil section. Its work is done by delegates who interestingly enough are sometimes referred to as commissioners, very similar to commissioners under the Law Reform Commission, and these commissioners are appointed members of governments. This is a process that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as other provinces and territories, participate in today.

As well, in Newfoundland and Labrador, when law reform is being considered and being discussed, the Department of Justice and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador carry out law reform in consultation with the Newfoundland and Labrador Law Society. As well, not only the Newfoundland and Labrador Law Society but the Newfoundland and Labrador branch of the Canadian Bar Association participates in law reform in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, it has been referred to as what some other provinces do and how they do carry out their functions in law reform. In certain provinces where there are law schools such as British Columbia, the Law Reform Commissions are operated in consultation with the University of BC. In Alberta, it is the University of Alberta; Saskatchewan, with the University of Saskatchewan. In Ontario, there are several universities that participate. Some of these are funded in part by their respective provincial governments and also through various grants from provincial law foundations and law societies and university law faculties, which, of course, in Newfoundland there is not a university law faculty.

In New Brunswick, it disbanded its law foundation in 1993. The legislative branch, very similar to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the legislative branch within the provincial Department of Justice in New Brunswick is now responsible for the reform activities.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I have to reiterate that in Newfoundland and Labrador law reform is done in consultation with the Newfoundland and Labrador Law Society, as well we are full participants in the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. That is the process that is used in Newfoundland and Labrador today.

Under the legislation that exists right now, as I reviewed the legislation in preparation to speak on this piece of legislation today, I looked at the Law Reform Commission Act, and under section 3 of the act it indicates that the membership of the commission shall consist of a number of members that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may prescribe. Now, interestingly enough, under this legislation that number may be one. It allows for and actually refers to one person being appointed to the Law Reform Commission in Newfoundland. Now that it is being done by staff under the Department of Justice, it does not create a difference in the numbers of people who could be dedicated to this. In fact, with the department as it is, with support staff and others who exist, the work carries on.

I also learned, Mr. Speaker, through the research that I have conducted, that the functions of the Law Reform Commission at the time, under section 7 of the act, which this bill will repeal, it indicates that the commission is "…to inquire into and consider a matter relating to (a) reform of the law having regard to statute law, the common law and judicial decisions…" – which is now a function of the Department of Justice – "…(b) judicial and quasi-judicial procedures under an Act; or (c) a subject referred to it by the minister. (2) The commission may institute and direct legal research for the purpose of carrying out its functions."

It is interesting that when I read that – I had an opportunity to discuss the Law Reform Commission with my colleague, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, who was a member of the Law Reform Commission in Newfoundland and Labrador until 1992 when the funding ceased. He tells me, through my discussions, that part of the work that they used to do as a commission at that point in time was research law, the history of law, the origin of law. They would delve into that type of research with his colleagues at the time who, interestingly enough, were: Chief Justice Green, who was a judge at the time, as well as Madame Justice Margaret Cameron, who is now retired – she was on the law commission as well with the now Minister of Finance – and also Justice Carl Thompson, who was a practising lawyer in Newfoundland and Labrador at the time.

Mr. Speaker, to sum up and to conclude my remarks today, I think it is important to consider, and what I see happening here is that law reform continues to occur in a comprehensive manner in Newfoundland and Labrador. Laws are discussed and debated here in the House of Assembly for this Province. When laws come to the House of Assembly here, there is a tremendous amount of work and research done on those laws. As indicated, it is not unusual for laws to be reviewed, or discussed, or consulted with other agencies such as the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador or the bar association. That is the process that is not inconsistent with many other jurisdictions in the Province. The commission itself has not existed since 1992. Having regard for those factors, that is why this piece of legislation is brought forward today, to repeal the Law Reform Commission Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was not my intention to take part in this debate today but hearing some of the commentary on the floor of the House today, I decided, as a person who was a former member of that commission at the time the funding was taken away, that I would take this opportunity to say a few words for a particular purpose.

I served on the commission; I was a younger person than I am now, a lawyer in Corner Brook and I had an interest in the reform of the law. I was inspired by former Minister of Justice and Deputy Premier in this House, Lynn Verge, who had almost single handily, and with the support of the then Premier Brian Peckford, reformed the Family Law Act in the Province of Newfoundland. There was an act called the Matrimonial Property Act at the time, which revolutionized the ownership of property so that the rights of women would be protected. It was major reform and there many, many areas of the law in this Province that needed to be looked at, to be researched and to be modernized; to be brought up into the twenty-first Century.

I had the pleasure of serving on the Law Reform Commission at the time with, as my colleague mentioned, the Chair at the time was a judge by the name of J.D. Green, who is now the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador. Also, Madam Justice Margaret Cameron was a member of that Commission. She is well-known to the MHAs in this House as the Chair of the Cameron Commission, which looked into the breast cancer issue which was quite prominent in this Province recently.

Another young lawyer who was on that Commission at the time was Carl Thompson, from the Poole Althouse law firm in Corner Brook, who is now a judge of the Supreme Court of the Newfoundland Trial Division here in St. John's. Also, Mr. Cal Lake, who was Chief Legislative Counsel here in this House of Assembly and was an ADM in the Department of Justice, was on it because the Commission certainly needed his specialities and his expertise in drafting of legislation. Also, there was a lawyer from St. John's named Linda Black, who, I understand, has moved – Linda Hunt-Black – out to Calgary with her husband Doug. Chris Curran, who later was High Sheriff of Newfoundland and a Registrar of the Supreme Court, and the former Deputy Minister of Justice; he was Executive Director at the time. Helping Chris in doing the actual drafting and writing was Mr. Gary Kearney, who is a prominent lawyer in Corner Brook with the Newfoundland and Labrador Legal Aid Commission.

The objective of the Commission, of course, was to research and to reform the law of Newfoundland and Labrador. Our ability to do that, I think, was handicapped by the fact that there was no law school here, there is no law school in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and, of course, the commissioners, we were part-time commissioners; we all had day jobs that we had to go to. As a result, although I think the commission did some really good work, as the Minister of Justice mentioned, in terms of reforming the Mechanics Lien Act in this Province – I remember a lot of work with executions. I remember the Opposition House Leader mentioned he is a graduate of the University of New Brunswick Law School. There was a professor, I think, John Williamson, from that law school who worked with the Newfoundland Law Reform Commission in our executions project.

We were part-time commissioners. Most of the work – we had to go back to our homes and our day jobs and then come back again for meetings, and direction would be given to the staff, who would actually do the writing. So the real work, I think, a lot of the real work was done by the staff. So, at the time, when the government of the day, I understand it was 1992, and the government of the day said look, we are not going to put anymore funding into this commission, and therefore the commission, in effect, ceased to exist. I remember at the time, as a young lawyer, failing to understand the reasons for the decision, but today, as a Minister of Finance, I well understand the reasons that would have brought the government of the day to that decision. When you have to deal with different priorities and you have to decided where the money is going, law reform would not have been a major issue around government and around the Cabinet table when there were so many other pressing issues.

I know when I entered public life and I occupied the role of Minister of Justice we were faced immediately by the policing problem – the need for more police officers throughout the Province. When you compare that, and with the needs of the police for more resources and more officers and more equipment and more training – coming out of the recommendations of the Lamer Inquiry of the time – that would have got the priority over funding for a law commission. Then, when I was in Finance for three years and I went back to the Department of Justice, at that point corrections was the issue. The Decades of Darkness report, Moving into the Light, was the priority of the department. There was a tremendous amount of money and resources needed to attempt to modernize our correction facilities throughout the Province. In Labrador, the women's institute in Clarenville, Bishop's Falls, everybody knows the condition of Her Majesty's Penitentiary here in St. John's, which has been around since, I think it started in 1859.

Again, when the minister is doing up his budget to present to the Minister of Finance, what are the priorities? Unfortunately, law reform was not at the top of the list. Fortunately, the work was taken over by lawyers in the Department of Justice, lawyers who were there full-time, not part-time. Also, I know a lot of work was done with the uniform law reform commissioners. The last time, when I was in Justice, I had the opportunity to speak to that group down at the Delta Hotel. All of the commissioners from all over Canada were here.

I did not bring forward this legislation to repeal the act because I hope that someday funding might be available to resurrect the commission. Realistically, given the priorities that are there right now, I think the decision that the minister has made is the right one. Of course, if things change and there is a law school here someday and there is an opportunity, then obviously a new law can be brought in to resurrect the commission at that time.

The main thing I want to do today, Dr. Hubert Kitchen was the Finance Minister of the day who announced in the Budget of 1992, I understand, that funding would no longer be provided and the commission would come to an end. We never were formally advised. No one received any acknowledgement for the work that was done, and there was a fair amount of work done, as I recall. I would like to say in my capacity now here on the floor of this House of Assembly, I would like to thank Judge Derek Green, Judge Margaret Cameron, Judge Carl Thompson, Linda Hunt Black, Calvin Lake, Chris Curran, and Gary Carney. If there is anyone I have forgotten I apologize. I want to thank them for the work they did. It was all volunteer work. No one was paid any money for doing that work. It was done out of a sincere interest and a sincere desire by the commissioners to help modernize the law in this Province, to do research, and to make recommendations to government as to changes that should take place in the law. I want to thank them for the work they did. It was a service to the Province and they deserve to be acknowledged for what they have done, and to thank them.

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

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, if he speaks now he shall close debate.

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

I would like to thank my colleagues for their participation in this debate. The hon. Opposition House Leader and the Leader of the NDP, and my colleagues, minister and the Member for Topsail for contributing to this bill.

With respect to the consultation process, this commission has been defunct for over twenty years. I would rather suspect that if any of the players in the administration of justice had any concerns with the issue, the disbandment of the Law Reform Commission, I am sure they would have raised it before now. We are in constant discussion with all these groups and it has not been an issue.

Mr. Speaker, laws spring from different beginnings, from groups such as the Law Society, from the Canadian Bar Association, from individuals who have presented causes and kept on something with a particular issue only to finally reach the floor of the House of Assembly. This is ongoing all the time. If it had been a concern I am sure we would have heard from the judiciary or from the Law Society or the Canadian Bar Association.

With respect to the comments made by the Leader of the NDP on the objectivity and lack of consultation and independence of the Department of Justice in taking the lead in law reform, I would like to point out the Uniform Law Conference of Canada is an independent organization, an independent body representing all the provinces of the country. We pay $8,000 a year to be members of that body. They look at developing uniform laws for the rest of the country. They descent to all the jurisdictions, and we all benefit from that. You cannot get any more independent than that and you cannot get any more objective than that.

I would like to join with my colleague, the Minister of Finance, as well to thank the past members of the Law Reform Commission for the work they did. The minister singled them out and mentioned their names. If there was anybody we missed over the years, we thank them for the contribution they made. Their contribution was very valuable to the laws of this Province and we thank them for that.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat and move that this bill proceed to second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 8 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Repeal The Law Reform Commission Act. (Bill 8)

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

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

MS BURKE: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Law Reform Commission Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 8)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, Order 5, second reading of Bill 5.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand today and speak to this bill, Bill 5. Mr. Speaker, it is An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act. As you will recall, there have been a number of amendments to this act in the last number of years in the Legislature. Mr. Speaker, some of them go back to the previous Administration when we first started seeing amendments to the smoke-free act in the Province to ban smoking in bars in Newfoundland and Labrador. It was not in bars but in restaurants, a correction there, Mr. Speaker. It first started to ban smoking in restaurants.

At that time, there was a lot of debate in the Province, especially with the restaurant owners association as to whether it was going to affect their businesses and the effect that it was going to have on patrons and so on. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we have probably seen more activity in the restaurant business as a result of it, not only in Newfoundland and Labrador but right across the country. For many of us today it is hard to even imagine now that you could at one time go into a restaurant and actually smoke at a table and have dinner because we have been so long without it that it seems a little bit foreign to most of us at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, we later amended the act as well to ban smoking in public spaces and public buildings in many cases, places like the Confederation Building here, for instance, the offices of Confederation Building, but public buildings right across the Province. Again, the same thing, at that time you could go into almost any building, smoke inside the building and it was never an issue. When it happened there was some debate, but today when you reflect back for many people, they cannot imagine the fact that you could actually come into public buildings and be able to smoke. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I have heard stories from members about how back years ago, long before I was in the House of Assembly, that you could actually smoke in the House of Assembly. That is the transition and the change that we have seen over all of these years.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we amended the act again, and this time it was to ban smoking in bars. Again, the bar owners association had some issues with it. They were very frightened, Mr. Speaker, in terms of what it would mean to the bottom line for their business, if they were going to be able to maintain a profitable position or if banning smoking would actually drive patrons away. I think, again, we have seen the very extreme happen. That is that the bar association is still doing very well in this Province. I have not been in any bars myself, Mr. Speaker, in the last little while but I can tell you from what I understand and what I know, there is still a good business out there and there are still lots of people who still go to bars in this Province and so on. So it has not affected their business or their clientele in one way or another.

What we are doing today, Mr. Speaker, is bringing in another amendment to the act. This time the government is asking that the act be amended so that they would ban smoking in all cars that are carrying children. It would also prohibit the designated smoking rooms in all workplaces, except a workplace that is a remote worksite, an underground mining operation, or a marine installation or structure. I can explain that a little bit further as we go on.

Mr. Speaker, initially, there was a lot of discussion in this Province, and right across the country, about banning smoking in motor vehicles while a person under sixteen years of age was present in that vehicle. There was a huge campaign launched right across the country, even in Newfoundland and Labrador, to ban smoking in vehicles when these vehicles were carrying children. I must say, there was a lot support for this, Mr. Speaker, and there were a lot of people out there who were encouraging government to bring this forward. Finally, we are seeing it.

We are not the first Province to be doing this. In fact, we are probably one of the last provinces to be doing it. We are following the lead of many other governments across Canada that has already decided that this legislation needed to be done. Mr. Speaker, six other provinces so far in Canada has banned smoking in cars that are carrying children.

Nova Scotia, the Town of Wolfville, in fact, was one of the first Canadian jurisdictions to ban smoking in cars. That happened in 2007. In one town in Atlantic Canada, Mr. Speaker, they decided that this was important enough, that they would take it upon themselves as a town and they went out and brought in legislation to actually ban smoking in cars, and that happened in 2007. Very soon after that the Province of Nova Scotia took the lead from the Town of Wolfville and they banned smoking right across the Province. Mr. Speaker, they realized that this one town in their province had done something that was very much a vision in terms of where we needed to be going and very much necessary in terms of the protection of children from second-hand smoke, so they decided they would go out and bring in this ban.

Newfoundland and Labrador is the only Province in Atlantic Canada that has yet to enact this legislation. We are, in fact, the last Province in Atlantic Canada to bring this forward. I am not sure why the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador took so long because it has been out there for four years now and they have had four years of people lobbying them to get this legislation in place. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat embarrassing that we are the last Province in bringing forward this legislation in banning smoking in vehicles that are carrying children, but I am happy to see we are finally going to do it. Embarrassing that it took us so long and that we are dead last in getting around to it, but I am very happy that we are finally going to do it.

In 2008, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Cancer Society poll indicated that 82 per cent of Canadians were in support of banning smoking in cars that were carrying children. That was 82 per cent of the people in this country. There is absolutely no reason why every province across Canada is not enacting this legislation. Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, some of them will see the wisdom in doing so, like the government opposite did after finally four years and three years of having statistical information in front of them, telling them not only the harm on children when it comes to second-hand smoke but also that a large number of people in the country and in the Province actually support this.

Mr. Speaker, child advocates and the anti-smoking movement have been calling for such legislation for some time. The Newfoundland Lung Association has been promoting the idea for quite some time and a group known as the West Coast Asthma Support Group also was expressing the need for a change here. I want to commend these groups and organizations in Newfoundland and Labrador for the work that they have done. The public awareness campaign that they have launched around the benefits of bringing this legislation forward, and the fact that they have gone out and advocated and really made their views known in terms of the need for this, and to finally capture the attention of the government in this Province, Mr. Speaker, the Dunderdale Government, and finally something is going to happen.

Mr. Speaker, once the children are in the vehicles, they are in a closed environment and they are at the mercy of the driver. They have no control over the environment that they are in, and we all know that. Many of the members in this Legislature are parents themselves and have raised children or today have grandchildren. In my case, Mr. Speaker, I have nieces and nephews. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we all know the dependency of children upon their parent, their guardian, or the adult figure in their lives. We also know that when children are placed into a vehicle and they strapped in with their seatbelts, they have no control over the environment that they are in. They are at the mercy of whomever that guardian or whoever that driver is in that vehicle.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that we are banning smoking in vehicles that are carrying children is enabling these children to have a voice. We are enabling them to have protection, Mr. Speaker, at a time when many of them may not be able to speak up for themselves. Mr. Speaker, because children have no control over the environment they are often in when they become a passenger in a vehicle, it is important that they be protected.

Mr. Speaker, banning smoking in cars is a logical progression of the current trends that we have seen in this Province, especially where children are involved. I have already talked about some of the earlier amendments that were done to the Smoke-Free Environment Act, which included bringing in first of all the ban of smoking in restaurant; again, a form of protecting people from second-hand smoke but also protecting children. This is just carrying on a trend that has already been established in the Province, and it is a natural, new progression to take it to this particular level.

Mr. Speaker, we need to act because it protects the youngest members of our society and it saves money down the road in terms of our health care costs because we all know that smoking is linked to the rising cost of health care in this Province. We also know, Mr. Speaker, that smoking affects a number of diseases, and so does second-hand smoke. Health Canada estimates that 1,000 Canadians die annually from cancer and heart disease that are related to second-hand smoke. It is not just the person who is smoking; it is the person who is exposed to cigarette smoke as well. Mr. Speaker, we already know that 1,000 Canadians will die every year in this country because they have been exposed to second-hand smoke. Second-hand smoke is believed to affect children more powerfully, simply because they breathe more quickly than adults. Several studies have shown that childhood exposure to second-hand smoke results in increased hospital emergencies, visits, and admissions for infectious and respiratory illnesses of children.

So, Mr. Speaker, there is statistical evidence out there that supports the fact that second-hand smoke can be very harmful to children. Very harmful to them in a number of ways, as we have just seen, but the studies are also showing that it has increased the number of times children are admitted to hospital. It has certainly affected the number of cases of infection and respiratory illnesses that children suffer from. So, there are studies and there is statistical information that shows us this.

Children are smaller, as we all know, Mr. Speaker, chemicals absorb more quickly, and damage from smoke is being done while they are being developed through their earlier years of childhood. Studies show that there is a fairly direct link between asthma and exposure to smoke. So, Mr. Speaker, it is very likely, not always the case, but oftentimes, and very likely, that when children are exposed to second-hand smoke when they are in their earlier years, when they are growing and developing as children, that they can oftentimes develop asthma and asthmatic conditions. There are studies out there that show that as well.

Mr. Speaker, second-hand smoke, as we know, contains more than 4,000 chemicals that a smoker inhales through a cigarette. According to the US Surgeon General, Mr. Speaker, there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke at all. It is extremely dangerous to infants and to young children. Mr. Speaker, that certainly begs the need to bring forward this legislation today and to ensure that we ban smoking in vehicles that are carrying children.

Mr. Speaker, the bill also prohibits designated smoking rooms in all places except a workplace that is defined by an underground mining operation, a marine installation or a structure. The minister spoke to that to a certain degree when he was speaking earlier. He talked about the places that would be exempt. When we get into Committee, I am sure we will get a bit more of an explanation around this, but maybe the minister can speak to it when he closes second reading of the bill.

I am understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the regulations that we seen put in place by Eastern Health just recently, when they banned smoking within a certain distance of Eastern Health facilities, asked that people or workers not smoke in their vehicles, there were a number of things I think that were encompassing in the regulations for Eastern Health when they brought in banning smoking. I know one of them, Mr. Speaker, was that there was no designated smoking rooms or facilities left within Eastern Health and that people were no longer allowed to smoke within proximity of the building; they had to remove themselves, I think, entirely from the hospital premises. I am not really sure now if that included the parking lots or not.

I am just asking if the new regulation that is being introduced here today would prohibit designated smoking rooms in all workplaces, because I understand, Mr. Speaker, that there are some smoking rooms in some of the personal care homes or long-term care facilities that provide services to seniors. The question was asked of me: Does it mean that this will close those particular smoking rooms in those facilities that are providing care for elderly people? I do not know the answer to that. So, maybe when the minister stands, he can provide us with some clarity on that piece and provide the answer that this individual was looking for, because I am not sure of what the answer is.

Mr. Speaker, we do know that this particular legislation is progressive in terms of the trends that we have seen in banning smoking in other facilities across the Province. It is something that is not unheard of, especially when you know that lung cancer is one of the leading causes of death due to cancer in this country, as well in Newfoundland and Labrador. Smoking tobacco is probably the second most preventable lung cancer that we can have; I think it accounts for 85 per cent of all lung cancers in the country, and we know that it can be preventable as well.

We also know, Mr. Speaker, that smoking causes respiratory and digestive cancers, as well as cancer of the mouth, the throat, the larynx, and the esophagus. Research also indicates that smoking tobacco is a contributing cause of leukemia and cancers of the bladder, stomach, kidney, and pancreas. Mr. Speaker, female smokers are also at a greater risk of developing cervical cancer.

We know that smoking contributes largely to a number of different cancers that have been very common in Newfoundland and Labrador; in fact, with some of them we have had the highest rate of cancer per capita of anywhere else in the country. We know, Mr. Speaker, that heart disease is one of the leading causes of death among Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Smoking is one of the controllable factors that we have in our lives to help control heart disease. I think it is important to point that out.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I want to recognize the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco. This group has done a great job in our Province in raising awareness around the controls of tobacco, but in raising awareness around what tobacco can do to you, either first-hand or second-hand smoke. They have done a great job in raising that kind of awareness, in lobbying governments over the years to bring forward leading legislation that will lead in this particular area to ban smoking on a number of fronts. I just want to acknowledge them again for the fine work that they have done in the Province.

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.

It is indeed an honour to get up here today and say a few words on the Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005, a law respecting smoking in the private place and workplace. Mr. Speaker, our minister got up yesterday and he talked a lot about common sense. That is a lot of what is happening here today with this bill, it is common sense.

When we look and we see today that smoking has changed over the last number of years where people are allowed to smoke, and we look at, right now, you cannot smoke in the workplace, any public place where people gather, public buildings, office buildings, commercial establishments, health care facilities, anything to do with child care services and that is under the Child Care Services Act, in colleges, universities, educational institutes, schools, anywhere where people are being taught. You look at cinemas, theatres, video arcades, bingo halls, pool halls; you cannot smoke on ferries, bus terminals, buses, taxis. Anywhere where passengers are paying to be transported you cannot smoke. It is common sense, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here today, and what we are doing here today is protecting our children.

This bit of legislation, what this is going to do is ban any smoking in cars where children under the age of sixteen are present. I know right across Canada there are already eight provinces that have this law in place. We look at Newfoundland and Labrador, and we looked at 79 per cent of the people over the age of fifteen do not smoke in this Province, which is a great thing. I know when I was first growing up it seemed like the majority smoked. We also looked at young people today, and young people today between the ages of fifteen and nineteen have chosen not to smoke; 84 per cent of them do not smoke. That has been cut in half. Since 1999, that is down to 16 per cent. It has been cut in half, and I attribute it to a lot of stuff that government has been bringing in, the reason for it being cut in half.

There is one part of the statistics, Mr. Speaker, the minister brought in yesterday that is pretty alarming. I think it is something that we all have to take notice of; he said that 35 per cent of kids from Grades 6 to 12 are subject to smoking in cars. I think there is a reason for this and I think it is something that we really have to change the mindset of people, because I know if there was an infant in a car or someone in a car seat then I think the person would have less tendency to smoke because they look at them as a smaller child. They do not look at the point that once they get to about nine, ten or eleven years old, to sixteen, that they are not the same as a child or an infant in a car. They refuse to smoke when an infant is there; yet, sometimes they will smoke while a child between the ages of - like I said, from ten to sixteen.

This law really helps those children. Like I said, there are 35 per cent of children saying they have been susceptible. So this law will help those groups of kids because I am sure a lot of people, especially parents today when they get their newborns and their infants, they really want to protect these children. Not that they do not want to protect them when they get a little older but they lose the mindset that they have. This law will bring in that a sixteen-year-old child in a car needs to be protected also. This is a great thing what we are doing here today to make sure that this law comes in place.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at some of the health care issues that children face due to second-hand smoke, we look at bronchitis, middle ear infection, and asthma. These are all illnesses that children can get no matter what age they are, whether they are six months old, six years old, or they are sixteen years old. Decreasing the amount of second-hand smoke that they are around will help in everything. It will help with their health and it will help this Province in the cost to take care of children with bronchitis, asthma, and different things caused by second-hand smoke.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister also referenced that since 1999, the amount of people smoking in this Province has dropped from 28 per cent down to 21 per cent. I would like to go back a little bit further than that. I know the figures are there. I am not telling my age or anything, but I would say back when I was a young fellow at the age of seventeen or eighteen, the majority of the people smoked. I can remember going to school at Gonzaga and the smoking area at the end of the school was the most popular area in school. I did not smoke at the time, and I never did smoke, but the minority of the people were the ones who did not smoke and the majority was the ones who did. So, today, to see that down to 21 per cent is a great thing.

I just recently – and I am going to give a little plug here now – became involved in a junior hockey team that just recently, actually Saturday night, won the Junior Championship here in St. John's –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KEVIN PARSONS: – the Mask Security Celtics, and they beat the St. John's Caps four games to one, which was a great, great win for the team. I have been involved with that team since a little while ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was the MVP?

MR. KEVIN PARSONS: The MVP was David Parsons. I am very proud.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KEVIN PARSONS: He is a good hockey player.

Anyway, I want to just bring a little - to his day of playing hockey versus my day of playing hockey. Now, I have been around those young fellows for the last number of years and I think there may be just one of them who actually smokes. You are in the dressing room with them and there is none of them there who smoke, but when I played hockey, well, when you went to the dressing room you had to go outside to get a breath of air because everyone was smoking in the dressing room. It is a different day, and our younger people today are more educated, they are more aware of the effects of smoke and everything else, and that is why they are refusing to smoke. That is why there are only 16 per cent of young people today who do smoke. Mr. Speaker, I will say they are a little bit smarter than we were.

This law is protecting even the younger ones. It is protecting the ones who are in cars where people, for some reason, happen to smoke in front of them. Second-hand smoke has an effect on them. So, Mr. Speaker, like I said, this is a great bit of legislation that we are bringing in here.

Mr. Speaker, I look at a lot of people who smoke, and I realize that today, again, the mindset has changed, because I know friends of mine who do smoke and they come to my house, and rather than smoke in my kitchen, they will walk out and have their cigarette on the deck, and you will see people do it all the time. They will go to different places where they are by themselves, they enjoy a cigarette, and they have the right to smoke but the right to smoke in front of children is not there, and we are doing something about it. This is a great, great thing. Like I said, most people will not smoke in front of kids, they will not smoke at playgrounds, they will not smoke were kids are. So, again, this is not against people who want to enjoy a cigarette, this is for people, like small children, who need our protection.

The other part of this legislation that it is also bringing in is in the workplace. You are not allowed to have a confined area in a workspace anymore. I can remember going to the coffee shop on Ropewalk Lane, you would walk in and they had this big glass place there where it was the smoking area, but no matter what, when you were there, when the door opened the smoke was coming out. The smell was coming out, and you inhaled it. I would imagine it is the same thing at any workplace that right now has the same thing. As much as the ventilation and everything else that we can put in these places, it is still harmful to the people who are there.

Mr. Speaker, our government has made a lot of investments over the years helping to decrease the amount of people who are smoking. If you look at this year, we invested $175,000 in the smoke-free helpline. That helps anybody who has issues, who cannot do it themselves; this gives them a bit of guidance and some ways in which they can stop the habit of smoking. So, we are investing there.

Also, the big thing that I really did not know how it was going to work, but I looked at when they put up those power walls that were involved in – you would go into most of the local stores. I know a lot of store owners had a lot of objections to their displays being closed up and whatnot. If you look at it, you would go into the local store and you would see a picture, a good looking girl, a good looking guy, they are having a smoke and thinking it is a great thing. By doing what was done to close this up, that is gone now. The guy who still wants a smoke, he will order his pack of cigarettes and they will open up the thing and get it, but at least our children are not going in and seeing that it is a cool thing to smoke. I think that was a great thing that came in place, and again, it is another one of the reasons why people are choosing not to smoke.

Also, the minister mentioned yesterday about social media. We all know how important social media is, Facebook and everything else. So, the government investing $50,000 in a campaign for anti-smoking is huge to help out the young people who are on social media, and looking at the ways that it is not cool to smoke any more.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to just close my remarks by saying that I support this bill, it is a great bill, and I congratulate the minister for bringing it in.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am very pleased to stand today and speak to Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005.

I think we should be proud of ourselves here in the House today that we are discussing this bill. We certainly have followed the trends in Canada where we do have very strict regulations with regard to smoking. Many places in the country have brought in very strict regulations and it is one place here in this Province where we have actually followed a trend – in some cases even lead – when it comes to having a smoke-free environment, publicly and otherwise. I am proud that we can stand today and speak to this bill.

I am sure that there are some people who might be thinking, stopping smoking in a car, how are we going to do that and do people really want it? In actual fact, in polls that have been done in Canada, one that was done by the Canadian Cancer Society in 2008, three years ago, 82 per cent of Canadians support a ban on smoking in vehicles, which I found very interesting, which I read. The same poll also discovered that 69 per cent of smokers even thought that the smoking in cars with children should be banned. There was another poll done in the country that actually indicated 75 per cent of smokers believed that there should be a ban on smoking in vehicles. We have tremendous support behind us in standing here today and wanting to bring in the ban on smoking in vehicles when children are present in the vehicles and with us we are saying up to the age of sixteen.

This exists in most of Canada, not all of Canada. Nova Scotia, PEI, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, British Columbia, and the Yukon do not have smoking in vehicles with children in the vehicles. We are joining six other provinces and one of the Territories when we pass this bill here in the House. The little variance around the definition of children does occur in the country; some say up to the age of sixteen, as we are voting on here today, some say up to the age of nineteen. There is one province that says up to the age of eighteen. So there is a bit of variance in terms of how far up the age line we should go. Obviously, the further up the better. I think certainly up to sixteen is good, and we may want, down the road, to look at maybe that should be extended. The age group in Canada most likely to report being exposed to second-hand smoke in vehicles, on a daily or near-daily basis, is young people from twelve to nineteen. That may have been the basis for some provinces going as far as nineteen; they had an indication of the high incidence of teenagers being in cars with second-hand smoke.

Second-hand smoke is finally coming into its own with regard to the seriousness of second-hand smoke. For a long time, once we became aware of the effect of smoking on our health, we were concentrating on people who did the smoking and the effect on their health. In recent years, with the increased research into the negative effects on our health of smoke, we have become much more aware of the very bad effects of second-hand smoke. It has been quite jarring, I think, for people to come to the realization of how serious second-hand smoke is with regard to our health.

We have to thank people who have stayed on top of this issue, researchers who have stayed on top of it, and activists who have stayed on top of it. It is interesting to note that the first jurisdiction in the world that looked at the whole issue of second-hand smoke in cars and the effect on children and young people was actually the State of Arkansas in the United States. Worldwide, they were the first jurisdiction in 2006 to pass this law. So it has only been five years since this law came into a jurisdiction. Things are happening fairly quickly, I would think, and it is because we do have so much research going on indicating the dangerous nature of smoking, both for those who smoke and for those who are non-smokers, the ones who are affected by the second-hand smoke.

In terms of danger, I read just since yesterday a piece of research that I found extremely interesting. When we sometimes think of smoking, and even second-hand smoke, we are inclined to think more of respiratory conditions developing and lung cancer developing. I think, more and more, we are becoming aware of other parts of the body that can be affected by smoking as well.

What I found interesting is that even breast cancer, the risk of breast cancer is higher when there has been, either the person has smoked his or herself, or exposed to second-hand smoke. So, even smoking or exposure to second-hand smoke can increase the risk of breast cancer. That is particularly true for adolescent girls and younger women. I found that very interesting, because we do not often think of a cancer such as breast cancer as being at a greater risk because of smoking. So, the impact of smoke in our bodies – whether the smoke is inhaled ourselves, through our own smoking, or whether it comes in through second-hand smoke – the impact on every aspect of our bodies is absolutely, it is very serious. It is something that we need to continue educating people about.

Now, one of the things that has been researched is, what is the impact of having a law like this law? Can we not just educate people, can we not just let people know how bad the impact of second-hand smoke is, and if they are educated, will that not make a difference? Will they not stop? Well, research has shown – and there has been a lot of study in this – that education is not enough on its own; that in order to really have an impact on the amount of smoking going on, you have to have not just educational programs, but smoke-free law going along with educational programs. When you put the two things together – you have educational programs so people are becoming more and more educated, and at the same time you put a law in place that says okay, we are telling you why we are putting the law in place – people really do react to the law, and you do get a much better impact when you have the law along with education. Education just is not enough. We would like to think it is, but it is not.

There are some discussions that take place regarding how you are going to enforce this law. I mean, how can you prove that somebody is fifteen, or how can you prove somebody is not fifteen. So a cop stops a car, the law enforcement officer says, you look to me like you are under sixteen, and the person or the driver or whoever says, no, really, that person is seventeen and does not have any identification to prove otherwise. What are we getting into here, and how do you enforce it?

The thing is that if we were to let difficulties and challenges around enforcement stop us, then there are a lot of laws we would not have in place. If we were going to look at the difficulty of enforcing the use of cellphones, we would not have that one in place. If we were going to look at the difficulty of enforcing seat belts, we would not have that law in place. Yes, there are going to be challenges, but the challenges can be met. It is the safety of children and the safety of young people that is much more important.

We will meet the challenges of enforcement because we know and we believe the information that is there with regard to the dangers that are there for children, whose bodies are much more susceptible to carcinogens, are much more susceptible to the environment than adult bodies. Although we too, adult bodies, also are susceptible, and we have to protect ourselves. That is the issue: Young people cannot protect themselves. When we know that second-hand smoke is linked to leukemia, to brain and other childhood cancers, to asthma, ear infection, respiratory disease, and as I just mentioned also breast cancer, then we know that we have an issue that we have to deal with.

Some of the statistics we have heard, but I am going to repeat some of them. Second-hand tobacco smoke is twenty-three times more toxic in a vehicle than in a house. Levels in the confined spaces of cars can far exceed levels found in smoky bars – that is when we had smoky bars. Here in our Province we do not have the smoky bars any more. I think a lot of us are very grateful we do not have smoky restaurants and smoky bars. If you were to take the notion of a smoky pub, a smoky bar, and think about the smoke in there, and then to be told that the amount of second-hand smoke in there is not even as intense as the amount of second-hand smoke in a car, if smoking was going on in a car. It is very interesting that it does not matter whether a car has open windows or you have a sunroof that is open, whatever, it does not matter, the toxic levels of second-hand smoke in the vehicle is extremely high, dangerously high.

When they passed this bill in Ontario, and it was passed not that long ago, Premier Dalton McGuinty was the Premier at the time; he noted that one hour of second-hand smoke in a car, for children, is the same as a child having an entire pack of cigarettes. That is quite a statistic and that is something that should really shake us.

Obviously, here in this House of Assembly, we are not arguing this bill. We all agree that this bill should happen. We are following, as I said, the lead of many people. It is good for us to think of some of the groups who are fighting for this. The Alliance for the Control of Tobacco in Newfoundland and Labrador and the Canadian Cancer Society of Newfoundland and Labrador has been calling for this legislation now for awhile. They have been asking for the legislation to ban smoking in vehicles transporting children under the age of eighteen. I would like the minister to explain to us why we have not gone to the age of eighteen, and why we have gone to the age of sixteen. It seems to me - and maybe I am wrong because we do get distracted - that the choice of sixteen for us was a little bit arbitrary. I would like the minister to speak further to why we chose sixteen and why we did not go to eighteen. Eighteen seems more to be what other groups are choosing; one or two have gone to nineteen. Actually, I think the only one in Canada – no, Nova Scotia and PEI have gone to age nineteen. The Smoke-free Places Act of May 2008 in the Yukon they have gone to – no, that is in Nova Scotia and PEI, age nineteen. In the Yukon, they have gone to eighteen; Ontario, BC, New Brunswick, and Manitoba are sixteen.

I am wondering if the minister spoke with the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco in Newfoundland and Labrador and the Canadian Cancer Society of Newfoundland and Labrador to see why they wanted eighteen and why we did not choose do to eighteen. Especially when we know that we do have the statistic that says the age group that most, on a daily, or near daily basis, are exposed to second-hand smoke in vehicles is twelve to nineteen, then why wouldn't we have put the level up to the age of eighteen? I would like a bit of a further explanation from the minister on that, either now or when we get into Committee because I was not totally convinced by the reasoning, it did not seem to me to have any real rationale behind it. Maybe I missed it, so I would like the minister to speak to that when we can have further discussion. As I said, in Committee, probably, would be the place for that to happen.

I think I have made the point, Mr. Speaker, I have just one other point to back up what I said earlier about education and law going together. One of the ways in which that is really shown here in Canada is how our smoking rates went down between 1989 and 2008. In 1989, 32 per cent of Canadians smoked and in 2008, 18 per cent of Canadians smoked. We know that that is a combination of educational programs, along with smoking bans which have increased right across our jurisdiction.

Having said all that, Mr. Speaker, I am really happy that we have this bill. I am looking forward to voting for it. I think I would be happy, actually, if we had eighteen instead of sixteen. As I said, I look forward to hearing more of a rationale from the minister on that.

Thank you very much.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to rise this afternoon to bring my comments on this bill, Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005.

This is a very interesting piece of legislation. It is a very important piece of legislation. This afternoon I wanted to focus my comments on some of the background and reasons for this bill, as well as talk about some of the enforcement efforts that will be available to police in Newfoundland and Labrador, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, as well as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

This bill would amend the Smoke-free Environment Act to prohibit smoking in a motor vehicle while a person under sixteen years of age is present in that motor vehicle. As well, Mr. Speaker, this bill will prohibit designated smoking rooms in all workplaces except the workplace that is a remote worksite, an underground mining operation, or a marine installation or structure.

Mr. Speaker, a key component of the Provincial Wellness Plan focused on the reduction of tobacco use throughout the Province. Currently, 79 per cent of people in our Province fifteen years of age and older and 84 per cent of youth aged fifteen to nineteen are choosing to live smoke-free. Mr. Speaker, when you discuss some of the other statistics that are known in regard to smoking in Newfoundland and Labrador, this is a very important factor.

When I reviewed the statistics – and some of these have been referred to by some of my colleagues earlier, but I want to go back to them just for a couple of minutes if I may: "The programs and policies currently in place have seen the percentage of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians aged 15 years and older who currently smoke reduced to 21 per cent, down from 28 per cent in 1999." These are 2009 statistics, so in that ten-year period those aged fifteen years and older reduced from 28 per cent to 21 per cent, which is a significant reduction.

If you look at and consider the youth smoking rate between the ages of fifteen and nineteen, it has been nearly cut in half down to 16 per cent in that same ten-year period. Mr. Speaker, that means that ten years ago, in 1999, the smoking rate for fifteen- to nineteen-year-olds was at 32 per cent – was roughly at 32 per cent, over 30 per cent – down now to 16 per cent. So the rate for that age group, that younger group in those teenage years, was significantly higher than it was for rest of the population. After ten years of efforts by this government and organizations who are concerned about the health and safety of our residents to ensure smoke-free environments throughout Newfoundland and Labrador and throughout Canada, the percentage of youth fifteen to nineteen has drastically been reduced, while the percentage of those fifteen and older is now higher than that age group, the reverse of what it was ten years ago.

So that is a trend for those younger people that they continued not to smoke. As they grow older, we know we are going to see those percentages continue to come down. That can only happen with continued improvements to legislation as well as continued efforts by government, by the Department of Health and Community Services, by the activities under the minister such as this piece of legislation and the department, and by other organizations in Newfoundland and Labrador who work toward healthier lifestyles and encourage a non-smoking lifestyle.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to just refer to this legislation, this bill, for a few minutes because in the bill there are some interesting items which I believe are worthy of further discussion. For example, it does include in its definition a motor vehicle. When we refer to a motor vehicle that is prohibited, smoking in a motor vehicle is now prohibited, or will be prohibited, with the passing of this bill when there is a person apparently or actually under the age of sixteen. I will talk about that a little bit more.

A motor vehicle is defined by the Highway Traffic Act. It is worthy to have a look at the Highway Traffic Act because you learn that a motor vehicle is described as "a vehicle propelled, driven or controlled otherwise than by muscular power, other than a trailer or a vehicle running upon fixed rails". Now, I know we do not have to worry about fixed rails too much in this Province anymore, but it includes any type of motor vehicle. It can be a motor vehicle, it can also be an electric vehicle, hybrid vehicle – they are all included under that definition of motor vehicle in Newfoundland and Labrador. This bill will cover all of those types of vehicles. It includes a passenger car, a family-owned car, it will include a minivan, a larger passenger van, it can include a bus or other type of commercial vehicle – it is included in the definition of a motor vehicle.

Now, what this legislation proposes is that a person shall not drive or have care and control of a motor vehicle, whether it is in motion or not, while there is a person smoking in that motor vehicle and the motor vehicle is occupied by a person under the age of sixteen years. Now, I will stop there for a second, because it does use the words, shall not drive or have care and control of a motor vehicle. Now someone may ask, what is the difference? What is difference in having care and control of a motor vehicle versus what is driving a motor vehicle?

Care and control is not a foreign terminology used in law, it is quite common in some laws. It is actually referred to in several laws, such as impaired driving, as an example, where a person is not permitted to operate a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol or a drug. They also cannot have care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol or a drug. So these terminologies are not unique to this legislation.

For the purpose of this, if you consider for a moment, a family goes to a grocery store, and a car pulls in the parking lot, and the parent leaves the vehicle with a second parent and children in the car. The vehicle may be turned off, it may be still running, the windows may be open or closed, the sunroof may be open. In any case, under this legislation, it prohibits a person from smoking in that vehicle while children or a person under the age of sixteen continues to be in that vehicle.

So it does not have to be driven, it can be parked. Now, we know that car or control of a motor vehicle sometimes refers to – there are words that have been used to describe it, such as a person is seated in the seat ordinarily occupied by the driver. It also refers to, and it has been discussed in law many, many times throughout the years, that the vehicle can easily be put in motion by a person in the vehicle. So maybe you have a bench seat in the front and you are seated, not directly behind the wheel, but close to the wheel. The keys could be in the ignition or easily accessible to that person. All of those types of factors are included in the terminology of care or control over a motor vehicle, whether it is in motion or not. If it is parked, you cannot smoke in a vehicle, is what I read in this particular bill. If there is a person under the age of sixteen in that vehicle, you cannot smoke in a vehicle.

Mr. Speaker, we have to remember the intent of this legislation is for the health benefit of those under sixteen. The ones under sixteen are the ones who, quite often, cannot make that decision or do not have the abilities, the informed opportunity yet to make the decision. Now I do know many cases where I have seen a person light a cigarette and a young child can very easily, quickly identify and say mommy or daddy, that person is doing something bad, that person is doing something wrong, or why is that person doing something to hurt themselves? We work very hard these days to have our young children especially, understand that smoking is not a good thing, it is not beneficial to the person smoking, and it is not beneficial to anyone in the vicinity. We understand the dangers of second-hand smoke and we understand and teach our children on a regular basis that it is not healthy and not a proper thing to do.

If the vehicle is in motion, or if it is stopped, this legislation will prohibit the smoking by a person in that vehicle. As I alluded to a few minutes ago, it includes whether or not a window, a sunroof, a car-top, door or other feature of the motor vehicle is open. I have seen this over the years and in my previous career in policing – in my twenty-five years with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary – especially in later years, I would find in a deserted parking lot, maybe in a parking lot of a business that has been closed, behind the local school, that you find a vehicle stopped and you would find the occupants of the vehicle, quite often young people, who would be in or out of the vehicle, some in and out.

As memory serves me correctly I can tell you that as years went by this became more frequently seen because fewer and fewer people would actually sit in a motor vehicle and smoke a cigarette while they were in with their friends. Sometimes the operator said to their friends, I do not want you smoking in my vehicle, I will stop by the school, I will stop by the coffee shop, I will stop by a restaurant, grocery store, a business that may be closed, a vacant parking lot and I will let you out and you can have your cigarette. Being a police officer I can tell you over the years if you saw a vehicle sitting outside a business that was closed, it brought your attention to it rather quickly. Behind a school, it could have been old schools – unfortunately and far too often were damaged by young people loitering in the area. As time went on, you would quite often find that some of these young people were not there for a purpose to cause damage or to cause grief; they actually found a place to get out of a vehicle so that they did not expose their friends, the other people who in the vehicle with them, to second-hand smoke. Under this legislation if there is anyone in that vehicle under the age of sixteen, that would now be prohibited.

Coffee shops are another example. Quite often we will pull into a coffee shop, a fast food restaurant, and we will see vehicles parked in the parking lot. You may have one person in the vehicle who is eating, or a child eating, and mom or dad may be in the car and they are parked there waiting for their child to finish their meal and they decide to have a smoke. That is simply not acceptable. It will not be acceptable by this legislation. I know of cases where people would express their viewpoint to that person if they saw an adult smoking in a car with children in the car.

I know my colleague from across the House who spoke a few minutes ago mentioned that, according to the 2008 study, second-hand smoke from one cigarette smoked in a car exceeds the levels found in a smoky bar. Now it has been a few years since we saw smoky bars, and if memory serves me correct, I think it was 2005 when legislation came into effect to prohibit smoking in bars and bingo halls and on decks, licensed decks as well. If you remember back in those days, if you went to a bar, or prior to 2002 restaurants, because it was 2002 when restaurants were no longer permitted smoking inside of a restaurant. If you go back in the years before that, we have a tendency to forget how smoky and how contaminated the air could be prior to those rules coming in; but, according to that 2008 study, a cigarette smoked in a car could far exceed the levels found in a smoky bar, and that is really staggering if you think about it. If you think about how much smoke could be in a smoky bar, as it is put, that is pretty incredible the amount of smoke and danger that you can place a child in, in that type of circumstance.

Mr. Speaker, I want to carry on with section 6.1 because it talks about driving and having care and control, a person shall not; then it goes on to add under the next section, section 6.1, shall be enforced by a police officer. This gives the opportunity and ability to members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that they will become the lead agencies that enforce the ban on smoking in cars with children. Police officers on patrol who observe this behaviour will be able to issue a summary offence information or ticket, as it is commonly known as, when they observe this behaviour and have the evidence to support the allegation that someone has breached this act.

Under this particular section there sometimes can come into a problem of determining, well how old is a person? There may be a person in a vehicle who is twelve or thirteen years old and looks much older, or you can have someone older in a vehicle who actually appears much younger, but under this particular legislation - and I will briefly read the section, Mr. Speaker. That if it comes to a trial, "At a trial to determine whether a contravention of section 6.1 has occurred, a court may find evidence that the police officer enforcing the section honestly and reasonably believed a person present in the motor vehicle to be under 16 years of age to be sufficient proof of the person's age, unless the accused shows on a balance of probabilities that the person was, at the time of the offence, 16 years of age or more."

That deals with an issue that could very easily arise. I could think of all types of circumstances, from my experience and my career in policing, where that type of a problem could easily arise. In this legislation the Minister of Health and Community Services had the foresight to include this section to remove any ambiguity, to remove difficulties and challenges that may be raised to police in attempts to enforce this legislation. I commend him for that foresight to try and resolve that difference before it occurs, because I could see that happening.

I remember when the cellphone legislation first came into being in Newfoundland and Labrador and there was a court challenge. The court challenge by the person accused was, how do you know I was using my cellphone? That was the challenge the person presented. There was no evidence presented other than the fact that the person was holding a cellphone in the area of his ear, his mouth, where you would hold a cellphone and that the officer could see the person appeared to be having a conversation, but the defendant in the case said: Well, how do you actually know I just was not holding it there and talking to myself? How did you know I was using a cellphone?

There were a number of court challenges. They went to the levels of court because a court, at one point, agreed that it was the responsibility of the police, or the Crown in a trial, to produce the evidence to support an allegation that the person was actually using a cellphone. I know courts later, after there were several challenges, decided and ruled that a person holding a cellphone to their head and the observations of the officer, as in that case, was sufficient evidence to convict a person for using a cellphone based on the fact, why else would you have the cellphone up? They talked about the intent of the legislation and it made it appropriate to issue a charge, even though they did not have a cellphone bill or records of that particular cellphone.

In this case here, the same applies for a person believed to be under the age of sixteen. When the officer has honestly and reasonably believed a person present in a motor vehicle to be under the age of sixteen, that could be sufficient grounds at trial to prove that the person was under sixteen. Again, I commend the minister for his foresight on this.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot reiterate enough the importance of this piece of legislation has been outlined, as well as been outlined by other members of this House. I commend the minister again for bringing forward this legislation, and I will be supporting this legislation when we vote upon it here in the House of Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to make some final comments before we close debate on this matter. I will try to address some of the issues that have been raised, Mr. Speaker.

The Smoke-Free Environment Act; what we are doing here today, Mr. Speaker, is amending the Smoke-Free Environment Act, but section 4 of that act states that there can be smoking rooms in long-term care facilities and personal care homes. These smoking rooms are not covered under the amendment that we are dealing with because the long-term care facilities are not defined as workplaces under the act. They are defined as facilities. The regional health authorities have smoke-free policies in place, and most long-term care facilities under the regional health authorities do not have smoking rooms. The act still allows for it but the regional health authorities have policies prohibiting smoking inside or outside on their grounds.

Mr. Speaker, some personal care homes may have smoking rooms, but the act allows for that also. The Veterans' Pavilion does have a smoking room inside, and they are trying to phase it out. The Agnes Pratt Home, a nursing home facility, long-term care facility in the city, has one resident over the age of ninety who was grandfathered in, and after him there will be no more smoking at the facility. The Hoyles-Escasoni government-ran facility, Mr. Speaker, which is being replaced with the new long-term care facilities in St. John's, has one smoking room that serves a young adult population. The plan is to phase it out, and they are offering cessation programs. The Lions Manor in Placentia has one resident, an older resident who still smokes inside a designated smoking room, and after him, Mr. Speaker, there will be no more smoking.

Mr. Speaker, the sections of the act I am referring to are section 4.(2)(a): Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(d) – (1)(d) is the health care facility - the operator of a facility that (a) provides long term care, including a long term care facility located within an acute care facility; or (b) is a psychiatric facility or unit, may allow smoking for residents of that facility in a designated smoking room. So, Mr. Speaker, this does not apply, the current amendment to the Smoke-free Environment Act does not apply, because we are dealing with designated smoking rooms in workplaces.

The second issue that there is a separate definition of facility, as I recently talked about, and the definition of workplace, Mr. Speaker, is defined in the act. So, the issue was raised by the Leader of the Opposition, and that is the reason for that situation, Mr. Speaker.

In terms of the age of smoking, as I indicated in my speaking notes the other day, there was no magic in terms of how we came up with the age. We looked at what was going on in other provinces, we looked at the age in other provinces, and the consistent theme that we saw was the driver's licence requirement and the age. In Manitoba, Saskatchewan, BC, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island, they all had the driver's licence age of sixteen, similar to ours. As I indicated the other day, I was surprised somewhat, Mr. Speaker, the Yukon has a driver's age of fifteen. Then, the age of requiring youth access to tobacco, Mr. Speaker, is either eighteen or nineteen in all of these provinces. So, you had a driver's licence of sixteen, for example, you had an access to tobacco of eighteen or nineteen. Now, in terms of the age requirement, smoking in cars, Manitoba was sixteen; Saskatchewan, sixteen; the Yukon was eighteen; BC, sixteen; Ontario, sixteen; New Brunswick, sixteen; Nova Scotia, nineteen; Prince Edward Island, nineteen.

When we looked at the reasoning used by the other provinces, Mr. Speaker, the driver's licence appeared to be the requirement, or it appeared to be what they looked at in coming up with their age of sixteen. We decided to adopt that age. So, sixteen, Mr. Speaker, is the age, that is the reason that we put the age here. Is there a great logic or science to it? I think there is a logic. Is there a science? Perhaps not. We had to choose an age, Mr. Speaker, and we chose the age of sixteen. It is not arbitrary, we are looking at what they have done in other provinces, Mr. Speaker, and I think we cannot forget, though, the purpose and intent of this legislation is to make people aware of the danger with second-hand smoke and to prohibit smoking in vehicles with youth or children under the age of sixteen.

Now, as I indicated the other day, Mr. Speaker, and I spoke briefly about this, in terms of the enforcement, the proof of the age is outlined in the act and how they will go about that. Mr. Speaker, there is also a very public message in what we are doing as a government here. We are saying that this is not acceptable. It is not acceptable behaviour. It is consistent; it is a continuum of where we have been going as a government with smoke-free policies. I think I heard the Leader of the Official Opposition today talk about the prevalence of smoking in terms of it causing cancer and other chronic disease.

Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation will serve to send a very positive message to both parents and youth. Again, I am trying to think, as I drive to work every day, or drive home from work every day, have I seen people smoking in cars with children. Nothing comes to my mind, but it is not necessarily something I was looking for.

Mr. Speaker, it will be like so many other things in life, you get used to it. I am trying to remember specifically when seat belt legislation came in, but if you remember, Mr. Speaker, there was somewhat of a hue and cry and people saying: Well, we do not want to do this; there is no need of this. I would not get in the car today, Mr. Speaker, without putting on my seat belt and ensuring that everyone in the vehicle has their seat belts on. Again, it is a matter of adjustment, it is a matter of behavioural change, it is a matter of societal acceptance that this is the way it should be.

Mr. Speaker, we always run a risk whenever you bring in laws that are seen as prohibitive or potentially interfering with people's decision making that, as a government, we are going too far. This is not one of them. This is one, Mr. Speaker, where it is, again, a common sense application of the law. What we are saying here is change your behaviour to adopt society's standards. This is simply a reminder to you, but now it is in legislation that you cannot do this.

Mr. Speaker, there is something in the way that we, as human beings, think. Sometimes, if you suggest to someone that they should do something, they may not comply. As human beings and citizens of countries like Canada, especially in our Province, if you put something in legislation, we will tend to say: Yes, I cannot do that. That is breaking the law. The average person - and again, I dealt with this for many years - does not break law. Now, do we have so many regulations and rules that you cannot help it sometimes, you can be breaking the law and not even know it? So, it is a matter of education and awareness. Again, as I spoke to the other day, Mr. Speaker, oftentimes, our children will, especially in issues such as tobacco use, come home and say this is what we learned in school today, this is not good, and this is the effects of tobacco.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there will also be those who will say, well, it is hypocritical, as a government, we are charging taxes, we are making money off tobacco, yet we have the cost of our health care system. That is where you run the risk, Mr. Speaker, of telling people what they can and what they cannot do. That is the balance that we have to strike. Tobacco is legal, Mr. Speaker, it is legal for adults to use. So, what you try to do is make people aware of the effects on their health, but who can not remember those – and I do not know if they still do it on cigarette packs – those horrible pictures that they will put on cigarette packs, of lungs with cancer, and then the warnings to pregnant women. Well, Mr. Speaker, if people are going to smoke - because I would believe that, and I think the evidence supports that smoking is an addiction - then people are going to need help to stop. We are trying to do that as a government, again, through awareness and education.

This particular piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest, says to members of our public, we have to be concerned about our children. I think it was the Member for Cape St. Francis who talked about now how societal attitudes changed in terms of either being in the hockey dressing room or it was not too long ago the coffee shops would have that partition, and we are seeing that now change. I can remember, Mr. Speaker, years ago, I think when the smoke-free legislation was brought in to the bars, there was a big hue and cry from the bar owners of the effect it was going to have on their business.

Again, what we have seen is a progression; we have seen that things change with time. Mr. Speaker, again, I think it was the Member for Cape St. Francis who talked about there are the effects on our health, but there is also, if you choose to do something, you have to have that right; but, as an adult, you have that right, when it comes to the effect upon our children, we are suggesting to you do not expose our children to second-hand smoke. The effects of second-hand smoke are well-known.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this is a piece of legislation that should be very well-received. It is a piece of legislation that is intended to protect our children; it is intended to educate the public as to the dangers of smoking and second-hand smoke. Mr. Speaker, I would, on that basis, close debate on this matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005. (Bill 5)

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? Presently?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Smoke-free Environment Act, 2005", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 5)

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 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and second that I now do leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

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 House, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Bill 4, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 4, An Act To Amend The Public Accountants Act.

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

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 8 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 8 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 8 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Public Accountants Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Bill 5, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005". (Bill 5)

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 6 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 6 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 6 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 Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, Bill 6.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 6, An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act.

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

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 Standard Time Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Bill 7, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999". (Bill 7)

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 34 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 34 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 34 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 Municipalities Act, 1999.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, Bill 8.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 8, An Act To Repeal The Law Reform Commission Act.

A bill, "An Act To Repeal The Law Reform Commission Act". (Bill 8)

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, 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 Repeal The Law Reform Commission Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: I move, Mr. Chair, that the Committee rise and report Bills 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bills 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 without amendment.

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.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee have passed Bills 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

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 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MS BURKE: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted.

Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

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

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