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

Well, it was nice to get a listing of the proposal. It is too bad we will not get the opportunity to show in this House that we altogether support what is going on.

Mr. Speaker, with the wonderful news of more oil discovered off our shore comes the realization that we must be prepared to ensure we receive the maximum benefit from this non-renewable resource. It has been over a year since Captain Turner submitted his report on the Province's oil spill prevention and response capabilities, with its twenty-five recommendations for improvement.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Can she give this House an update on what the C-NLOPB has done to implement these recommendations?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it was certainly good news yesterday to hear Statoil indicate that they could have discovered up to 100 to 200 million barrels of oil. To put that in perspective, Mr. Speaker, last year in this Province, in 2011, we produced 97.3 million barrels of oil, so an average of 266,000 a day. It has the potential to be a significant discovery. It does bring with it, though, Mr. Speaker, the challenges of drilling in deepwater and being further out, so there are certain issues that have to be looked at.

The C-NLOPB, Mr. Speaker, and our government have indicated that the safety of the workers is the primary concern. That is the concern, Mr. Speaker, that we will address, so that anything that takes place in our offshore has that clearly in mind.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

One of the key recommendations made by Justice Wells in his inquiry into the tragic crash of Cougar Flight 491 was the implementation of an independent offshore safety authority. To date, this recommendation remains unfulfilled. With new oil discoveries being made further out in the North Atlantic in deepwater, we need this agency more than ever before.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: In the event she does get a meeting with the Prime Minister, how high a priority is this on her agenda?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The C-NLOPB certainly looks at these issues, but there is a constitutional division, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the Province and the federal government leading to the creation of this board. I can remember clearly, Mr. Speaker, the Premier standing up in this House and saying immediately that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador supported Justice Wells' recommendation. We have, Mr. Speaker, time and time again informed the federal government of our position. In fact, when I met with Minister Oliver, I think a few months ago in Ottawa, I indicated to him again the importance of this recommendation.

Mr. Speaker, we have certainly indicated our support. We have asked the federal government to consider it, but at this point nothing has taken place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Last year, people in the Province were shocked to learn from Captain Turner's report that there was no plan in place to deal with a deepwater blowout.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Have preparations been put in place to foster the prevention of, and in the worst case scenario, deal with deepwater blowouts and related environmental disasters?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government is acutely aware of the importance of protecting our environment, Mr. Speaker. It is one of the reasons that we support Muskrat Falls and the use of clean, renewable energy, Mr. Speaker.

The C-NLOPB will look at this issue and is looking at this issue, Mr. Speaker. There are plans in place. What is happening right now, and I think one of the – not to quote from the media, but I think that Statoil was mulling over the decision of whether or not to continue with exploration and development.

Mr. Speaker, when a project comes forward further we will certainly look at it. I can assure the members of this House and the people of this Province that safety and the environment are primary concerns; not only in relation to our offshore, but in anything we do in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, one of our key criticisms of the report on the Province's offshore spill prevention and response capabilities was they did not speak with any of the Province's most prominent environmentalists or seabird experts. Their concerns are not included in the report.

I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: What has the C-NLOPB done since the release of the report to correct this serious oversight?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Captain Turner made certain recommendations and he looked at what was going on. Mr. Speaker, there are EA processes in place, environmental assessment processes in place, but, Mr. Speaker, we also have to be careful here. Right now, in Old Harry in the Gulf we have environmentalists who are not interested in balancing the protection of the environment with development. Their motto, their goal is to shut everything down.

I do not know if that is the position the NDP takes, Mr. Speaker, but it is certainly not the position that our government takes. We want to use our non-renewable resources to secure a bright future for our children, Mr. Speaker, but in doing that, we want to ensure that things are done safely and that our environment is protected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, as the school year comes to a close we continue to see at-risk students failing to graduate and falling through the cracks. During the last election, the PC Party said it would work with stakeholders to establish an alternative school in St. John's under the aegis of the Eastern School District.

I ask the Minister of Education: Does his department have a plan to establish the alternative school or was that just another empty promise offered up at election time?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, this government is not about making empty promises I can assure the member that. If you look to our commitment to education, Mr. Speaker, it has probably been the best in the history of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, across this entire Province there are students with challenges. We work, as the Department of Education, with the school board. We identify the needs and then we attempt to address the needs. Mr. Speaker, that is how it works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, this government has done very little in the past nine years to address the challenges of Level IV students who have fallen behind. Government has made only hollow promises to provide solutions for at-risk students who face alienation and unemployment.

I ask the minister is he satisfied that Level IV students have a graduation rate that is 20 per cent lower than the graduation rate for other students?

MS MICHAEL: Good question.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I heard the Leader of the Third Party say, as the member sat down, good question. I am going to give her a good response, Mr. Speaker.

We have in this Province a pilot project; it is called PASS. It is about outreach services to those students who have left school, some who have left school for as long as maybe two or three years, Mr. Speaker. This past year, 210 students, including sixty-six who had left school, enrolled in their program from June 2011 and received assistance in 497 courses; 77 per cent of those enrolled students were eligible and did graduate in June of 2011 – success, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, federal Bill C-38 involves cuts that are far and wide ranging, some of which will have a great effect on this Province. The cuts to the Department of Fisheries, in particular section 134, talk about the possible downloading of responsibility of fish habitat unto the provinces, with us taking responsibility for that.

My question is for the minister: Has the minister talked to his Ottawa counterpart or officials of the department about the possibility of the Province taking charge of offshore habitat management and management of the fish resource?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: The short answer, Mr. Speaker, is no, we have not had discussions about any downloading to the Province. As a matter of fact, the Premier and I have both been very strong in our opposition to any downloading from the federal government to the Province. We, in fact, are pulling our weight and leading many provinces in fisheries and fishery science in particular, Mr. Speaker. We have made significant investments over the last number of years and some of that has been to try to pick up a gap that we thought existed with changes in the federal system.

We have certainly not had any discussions about the downloading of other duties. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, we are not all that interested in having any more downloading. We believe the federal government has a responsibility to the country and to the Province to manage the fisheries and we are going to work to help make sure they uphold that responsibility.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: It sounds like they have been downloading already, Mr. Speaker.

The danger in taking over fish habitat responsibility is that while we take it on, other provinces may not, resulting in the patchwork of jurisdictional control.

Has the minister talked to his other Atlantic Canada counterparts on this issue?

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KING: As I said a few moments ago, we have no interest in receiving duties put off to us that are not our responsibility. The member is not putting out something that no one in this House recognizes. There is always a danger when someone downloads a responsibility to a lower level government that you have not been responsible for.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, we have been very strong on our position on the fishery. The Premier has spoken many times in this House about where we stand on fisheries management, and what we expect to do by way of our responsibility, and what we expect the federal government to do to ensure that the fisheries management is carried out the way it ought to be for the benefit of the country and the benefit of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

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

MR. KENNEDY: I give notice that under Standing Order 11, I shall move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 26, 2012.

Further, I give notice, under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 26, 2012.

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, with leave, I give notice that I will move, seconded by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, the following resolution respecting the reappointment of the Information and Privacy Commissioner:

Be it resolved by the House of Assembly as follows:

WHEREAS section 42.1 of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act provides that the Information and Privacy Commissioner is to be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council on a resolution of the House of Assembly; and

WHEREAS section 42.2 of the same act states that a commissioner may be reappointed; and

WHEREAS the appointment of the current commissioner, Mr. Ed Ring, expires on June 23, 2012; and

WHEREAS it is proposed that Mr. Ring be reappointed as the commissioner for a term of two years;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Mr. Ed Ring will be reappointed as the Information and Privacy Commissioner for a term of two years.

MR. SPEAKER: Tabling of Documents.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On March 26, the Member for St. Barbe tabled a question in the House of Assembly requesting information on the quantity of fish products exported from our Province. I am more than pleased today to provide answer to that question.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador's seafood industry experienced another successful year in 2011. Higher market prices for key species, particularly snow crab and shrimp, combined with a continued growth in the value of the aquaculture sector, resulted in a rise in total production value. Through marketing, trade shows, and various other initiatives made possible by the provincial government, we continue to support the fishing industry's success in diversifying our global seafood markets for the benefits of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Highlights of 2011 include: record-level market prices for five-ounce to eight-ounce snow crab sections and cooked and peeled coldwater shrimp; total seafood production was valued at over $1 billion, representing a growth of 7.3 per cent; both the capture fishery and aquaculture industries saw a rise in production value, up 6.2 per cent and 1.8 per cent respectively; the majority of the Province's seafood products were exported to approximately fifty countries, with the United States and China remaining the Province's primary markets; in 2011, 114 processing facilities were licensed in our Province; shellfish production increased 2.4 per cent, representing a 45.4 per cent of total production for our Province; cooked and peeled coldwater shrimp production, Mr. Speaker, was at 19,296 tonnes for an increase of 5 per cent; snow crab sections for the United States market also increased by 5.6 per cent; and capelin production increased 7 per cent from 2011.

The Newfoundland and Labrador seafood industry is no doubt export dependent, Mr. Speaker. According to Statistics Canada, the Province's seafood export value in the first eleven months of 2011 surpassed its total value of 2010, reaching $830 million, up by some 11.7 per cent. Improved global demand for seafood, higher market prices for snow crab and shrimp, and an increase in aquaculture exports all contributed to this growth. Annual exports in 2011 were expected to reach 160,000 tonnes and a value of about $880 million, compared to about $780 million in 2010.

As previously mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the United States and China continue to be the Province's largest seafood markets, last year representing 36.2 per cent and 21.5 per cent, respectively, of our total export value. Other key markets we have, based on export value, include the United Kingdom, Russia, and Japan. These top markets make up more than 73.8 per cent of the provincial export value. The remaining portion was exported to about fifty combined countries.

Snow crab exports accounted for the highest value of all of Newfoundland and Labrador's seafood exports in 2011, at over $400 million. That same year, market prices for snow crab reached a record level. The United States continues to be the largest importer of our crab product, accounting for 60.6 per cent of the total value, while China and Japan follow them.

The total export value for shrimp was nearly $212 million in 2011. Within that category, Mr. Speaker, market prices for cooked and peeled shrimp showed significant gains. The major markets for the shrimp include the United Kingdom, Denmark, the Netherlands, and the United States, while offshore frozen shrimp mainly goes to Russia, China, Iceland, and Denmark.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to provide this information and make members aware that further information is available on our Web site.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Petitions.

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

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

I have a petition.

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

WHEREAS hundreds of residents on the South Coast of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, including residents of the communities of Burgeo, Ramea, Grey River, and Francois, use Route 480 on a regular basis for work, medical, educational, and social reasons; and

WHEREAS there is no cellphone coverage on Route 480; and

WHEREAS residents and users of Route 480 require cellphone coverage to ensure their safety and communication abilities; and

WHEREAS the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development recently announced significant funding to improve broadband services in rural Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the residents and users of Route 480 feel that the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development should also invest in cellphone coverage for rural Newfoundland and Labrador;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to support the users of Route 480 in their request to obtain cellphone coverage along Route 480.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition I have made on numerous occasions in this House. I have raised it for a whole number of reasons, whether it be safety, whether it be employment, or financial.

The reason I am bringing it up today is as we enter into the summer season, tourism season is here. I took the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, last week to look at the Department of Tourism Web site, which is an absolutely fantastic Web site. I have taken the opportunity to speak in this House about the advertising that we have done as a Province. It is great; it is award-winning.

The Web site is great, but the problem I have is that it is absolutely useless in many rural areas of this Province. The mobile apps that have been developed cannot be used because there is no cellphone service so that tourists and people of this Province can access this information as they travel around this Province.

It is just one more reason that we need to invest in this. We need to work with the private companies and we need to work with the CRTC to make this happen. The costs are not that much that we will not reap the benefits down the road, there is no doubt about that. We have seen other provinces do this. When we just look at this tourism industry, which is an industry in this Province that is continuing to grow, we need to make sure that the benefits of it can be conveyed to the people through this technology.

That is the reason I wanted to bring it up today, to say that we have a great thing there but we have to make sure that people have access to it. I would like to see the government develop a strategy to address this issue. There is not one right now. I have not seen it, I have asked for it. I have no idea where the government stands on this right now. I know there are a number of members here who have this same issue in their district, so I am hoping we can work together to make this happen. It would be a great step in the right direction for this Province, especially as we talk about the tourism industry and our economy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition.

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

WHEREAS early childhood educators are trained professionals essential to the operation of child care centres and indispensable to many parents and children across Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS on the occasion of Early Childhood Educators Week in May 2012, government conveyed its support and recognition for the role of early childhood educators and expressed its appreciation for their value; and

WHEREAS early childhood educators working in child care centres receive salaries that are amongst the lowest in Canada; and

WHEREAS government's 2012 increase in subsides paid to ECEs applies only to Level I ECEs working in child care centre homerooms and Level II early childhood educators who operate child care centres; and

WHEREAS all early childhood educators are highly educated, skilled, and deserving of a fair and equitable wage subsidy; and

WHEREAS government is discriminating against some of the most skilled ECEs in Newfoundland and Labrador;

Whereupon the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the government to revise the enhancement to the Early Learning and Child Care Supplement to include all early childhood educators working in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

I am glad I had an opportunity to rise on this, this week, Mr. Speaker, because on Monday I spoke to an owner-operator of an early childhood centre, a child care centre in Central Newfoundland. That person is a Level II and that person did get an increase in subsidy in recognition in this announcement that was made in May. I have to say, they are happy they received it but they are concerned that it was not extended to other ECEs in the Province.

I think if we really want to skill up this workforce and recognize people for their hard work and their dedication to this profession – I think the government may have lost an opportunity this year, but as we move forward I would urge members to think about something next year, as this 10-Year Child Care Strategy rolls out, something to provide an additional wage subsidy to ECEs at the higher end of the certification scale so that they all can get recognition and be better off for the work that they do.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Thursday, June 21, 2012.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Thursday, June 21, 2012.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock p.m. on Thursday, June 21, 2012; and it has been further moved and seconded that the House do not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock p.m. on Thursday, June 21, 2012.

All those in favour of the motion, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

Orders of the Day.

The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, a Notice of Motion given previously, with leave, respecting the reappointment of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

MR. SPEAKER: The House has leave.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that the motion read earlier respecting the appointment of the Information and Privacy Commissioner be now put.

MR. SPEAKER: The members have heard the motion read into the record.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted today to speak in support of this motion. As pointed out in the motion, the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act provides for the appointment of the Privacy Commissioner, and a reappointment term of two years.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ed Ring was appointed in an acting capacity back on December 18, 2007, and was confirmed in this House of Assembly four months later on April 10, 2008, and reappointed again in 2010.

Mr. Speaker, in the past when these motions have been put, Mr. Ring's bio and resume has been presented extensively in this House and presented in detail. Mr. Speaker, I am not about to do that today, but in the interest of new members in the House and for those people who are watching, I would want to briefly summarize the rather impressive record of Mr. Ring.

Mr. Ring had a long and distinguished career in the Canadian Armed Forces spanning thirty-four years, serving in both the regular and reserve components. He began his service in 1969, and was commissioned in 1973 under the Regular Officer Training Program. He graduated from Memorial University in 1973 and was posted to his first unit at the Canadian Forces Base in Gagetown, New Brunswick. He went on to serve, Mr. Speaker, in a number of provinces in Canada and also in England, South Wales, and West Germany. In 2001, he was appointed Deputy Commander of the Land Force Atlantic Area and was promoted to the rank of Brigadier General. Mr. Speaker, he has long and distinguished record in Canada's military, having retired from there in 2003.

He transferred to the reserve component, Mr. Speaker, and at that time began employment with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in 1992 and served as the director of policing services with the Department of Justice for four years. Subsequently, he moved to the Public Service Commission in 1997 and initially worked as a staffing officer and in 2002 to 2007 as Director of Appeals and Investigation Division. Mr. Ring is a graduate of Memorial University having graduated with a Bachelor of Physical Education.

During his military career, Mr. Speaker, he receiving training in investigations and judicial and quasi-judicial functions. Having a long, distinguished career both with this government and the military, he was at that time very well suited for his appointment. At the time, Mr. Speaker, the Premier said, "During his career with the Provincial Government and previously during his very successful military career, Mr. Ring acquired a depth of experience, knowledge and skill sets that will serve the public service well in his new position."

Mr. Speaker, rather than sing the praises of Mr. Ring today, I will use some quotes from the Opposition parties who can do it very well for me. At the time of reappointment in 2008, the Opposition House Leader at that time stated: Mr. Ring "is a gentleman beyond reproach, a person who does not only have the intellectual capacity to do this job but also has the ethical, the moral capacity to do it, to be absolutely independent, and I certainly have had no suggestion, intimation whatsoever, that this individual being put forth by government is not the right person. In fact, anything I have heard is that he is the right person."

At the time, the Leader of the NDP stated, "I am sure government has made a really good appointment, and I am really happy to support it… I am very pleased to ratify the appointment of Mr. Edward Ring."

Mr. Speaker, when he was reappointed in 2010, both Opposition parties again were very loud in their praises and very strong in their support of Mr. Ring's appointment. Mr. Speaker, hopefully the parties will see fit to do the same thing today in support of this motion. Mr. Ring's record in this position speaks for itself. He has performed an outstanding service to this Province. We are very fortunate to have him.

I want to ask all members in this House to support the motion to reappoint Mr. Ring for another two years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly pleased today to rise in the House and support the motion that had put forward by the hon. minister. It is a pleasure for us to offer our support for the reappointment of Mr. Ed Ring at the office of information and privacy in this Province as the commissioner. This is the third time that Mr. Ring has been appointed to this position. We feel that the experience that he brings to the job at this stage is very valuable.

Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Ring has proved himself over and over again in the position as commissioner for information and privacy in this Province. He has led what has been a very balanced approach in the protection of information but also in aggressively defending the public's right to know. That is really the true job and responsibility of any commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, as my former colleague for Burgeo – La Poile would have said in this House on the last occasion that Mr. Ring was appointed: He is a man, not only a gentleman, but a man of high morals and ethics. I think he has shown that to us. He has shown that to the people of the Province when they have come forward wanting to access information. We have seen Mr. Ring, Mr. Speaker, even take solicitor-client cases to the court of appeals in this Province in the name of representing individuals who sought to get information under this act.

We have no problem whatsoever in endorsing his reappointment. We certainly felt that the appointments in the new legislation for commissioners should have been longer than two years. I am not quite sure why the government did not choose to accept the recommendation of the Cummings report to make the appointments on a five-year basis. It is quite obvious that they do feel that experience is important when you are putting someone in a job of this calibre in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ring in his job certainly was able to arbitrate between the public and government on access to information. He did that very well on many, many cases. I was one of the people who had the opportunity to deal with his office through my job as an MHA, like I am sure many others have in the House of Assembly. I can say, Mr. Speaker, that any time I sought to access information, it was done in a timely manner and it was responded to in a very professional manner. When things were not eligible for disclosure, we were informed immediately. When things were, the information was made available to us. We may not have always agreed in terms of the interpretation of the legislation, but that is the balance that I felt that he brought to the job because oftentimes he did not agree with government either. We saw that in the court actions that he took in the time that he was there.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate him on this appointment and say to him that as the Official Opposition in this Province, we look forward to continuing to work with him in his role as a commissioner for information and privacy in this Province. We will be interested, Mr. Speaker, in learning how he will operate under the new stricter regulations around access to information in Bill 29 that was just recently passed in the House of Assembly.

I think, Mr. Speaker, by the mere fact that government is reappointing him at this time, they are also about to make serious changes to the act and proclaim new legislation – tighter, more restricted legislation in the Province. His experience, his continuity to the position, and his expertise will certainly be very valuable in that exercise and will guarantee that the people of this Province have accessibility wherever they possibly can, and assure others that information that needs to be protected is protected in their best interests.

Mr. Speaker, on that note, I again congratulate Mr. Ring, support the resolution as has been put forward, and look forward to working with him in his next term of office as the commissioner of privacy and information for the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

I am pleased also to stand this afternoon and support the government's reappointment of Mr. Ring in his role as the Information and Privacy Commissioner. We have had the history of his position explained by the Minister of Justice. Just as we were all pleased with his initial interim appointment and his consequent permanent appointment, I am again very pleased to see him continue in this position.

I did not know Mr. Ring when he first came into this role back in 2007. I would see him occasionally, because initially their offices were on the same fifth floor of the west wing of this building for a number of years, actually, before they were moved to another area. The one thing that I had been fortunate for was that as a Member of the House of Assembly Management Commission, we do interact on that commission with officers of the House; as a member, I certainly got to know Mr. Ring in his interaction with the House of Assembly Management Commission. Obviously we have to meet with officers to discuss their budgets, for example. That is the time when we most meet with them.

One of the things that has always struck me and continues to strike me about Mr. Ring is he, as has been said, is a very gentlemanly person. He is reasonable, and yet what I find very forthright –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Forthright in presenting what he believes, forthright in presenting requests, forthright in putting his information forward; if there is anything I appreciate in somebody, it is that, Mr. Speaker. There are no back doors with him. He is up front. I think that is a very good quality to have in the commissioner for information and privacy.

He has a broad range of responsibilities and powers under the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Some of those we discussed last week, obviously, when we were dealing with Bill 29. One of the things which he has responsibility for is actually for making recommendations to ensure compliance with the act. That is something that he does take seriously, that he has done and I firmly believe he will continue to do.

The other thing with regard to his role as the commissioner is that he leads a team. I have to say that I think the stamp that he has put on their office and on his team is one, first of all, of professionalism; they are an extremely professional group of people. They are also very co-operative, and I think that comes from their leadership as well.

When we have questions and when we have to deal with issues of seeking information and deal with clarity around the act, to get the information that we need to make sure that we are performing our role correctly as a caucus – and it was me by myself up until now, so I probably am the only one in the caucus who has really interacted a lot with the office. I have always found the team to be there for us, to be co-operative, and to make sure that we have what we need to do our work. I do think that it is the leadership of Mr. Ring that has brought that team to the level of professionalism that I see there.

I mentioned the fact that he is forthright and he is a very principled person. He takes his role very seriously. He did show himself to believe that strongly and to act in a politically neutral role when he did not back down from having to do what he thought was right in taking the government to court. He really is totally committed to the defence of citizens' rights to freedom of information.

Because of that I feel very confident that he is going to be very strong in trying to make the new act, the amended act, work for the citizens of this Province. I am very glad that the government recognized the need to keep him there, because I think having the person who understands the act well remain in the position right now is extremely important.

I look forward to seeing Mr. Ring monitor how things unfold under the amended act, and I hope that just as this government was willing to reappoint him here today – and I am delighted to hear the minister speak so highly of him – just as they are ready to reappoint him here today, that they will also be just as ready to listen to him when he brings forward, if he has to, recommendations with regard to how the amended act is working.

I have absolutely no doubt and feel fairly confident that if he sees any glitches he is going to make that known, because that certainly has been his history.

The NDP caucus and I extend our congratulations to Mr. Ring on his reappointment.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Members have heard the motion and heard the comments to the motion.

All those in favour of the motion, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Orders of the Day, Order 2, Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act To Amend The Fatalities Investigations Act. (Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 33.

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'.

Motion carried.

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

CHAIR (Verge): Order, please!

The last time Committee of the Whole sat, we were considering Bill 33, and that one has been referred again. My recollection is that we had carried clauses 1 and 2 and we were debating clause 3. There was an amendment put forward by the Opposition House Leader; the Opposition House Leader spoke to the amendment, so now we are looking for further speakers to the amendment.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to speak again to this act, and to speak specifically to the amendment. I know I went into it the other day, but I just thought I would highlight again the amendment that is put forward and the reasons why we see no need to support this amendment, because we have so many reviews in place already.

I would not want the public to think that if a child died, with the act that we currently have before us, that there are not reviews that are done, because there certainly are; there is a whole host of reviews that are done. This is just another tool in the toolkit for the prevention of child deaths, Mr. Chair. As I said, there are many existing mechanisms in place for the review of child deaths and to look at the systemic issues relating to these deaths. As I said, this child death review is essentially another avenue to do that. It is in addition to all of the processes and review processes that are currently in place to review child deaths and systematic deaths. So I would not want the impression to be left that if a child dies, for various reasons and various circumstances, that there is not a review conducted, because there certainly is.

I thought I would again take the time to highlight some of those reviews, starting with the reviews in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. We certainly have an internal review process for deaths, as well as critical incidents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: This review would be for children who are under our caseload, so whether they are in protective intervention, whether they are youth corrections or adoptions, or even if a child dies within the care of a regulated child care facility, because that certainly comes under our jurisdiction as well. A very high level of review takes place when a child dies under our caseload. We certainly look immediately to see if there is any immediate risk to other children in the case where a child died.

Mr. Chair, there are many things that could come out of the death review within our department. Some of the examples of actions could be further clarifying policy for staff or even planning a review of a particular policy and see what could come out of that. That is one place where death reviews already occur. As I said, this is to strengthen it by bringing it into legislation and adding the teeth. There are only two other provinces that have child death reviews in legislation, and that is one of the main reasons why we are putting it in legislation is to show that we are serious.

There are also reviews conducted in the Department of Health when a child may die, upon the death of a child in or upon arrival into a health care facility. An occurrence report has to be conducted. While I cannot speak to specific cases and the Opposition House Leader did mention one particular case, I can assure the public listening that there is an internal review that takes place in such circumstances as that. Then, through those review processes, there can be notifications made for changes to legislation or policy and so on. The results of those reviews could conclude that a child died as a result of a child medical condition. It could be that the standard of care was met or was not met. There could be issues related to the health care provider, and certainly that would require further review, and it could conclude that current procedures or protocols need to be further reviewed. That is another example of reviews that take place when children die.

As I mentioned the other day, we also have the Office of the Citizens' Rep. The Office of the Citizens' Rep is certainly appointed by this House. They can field inquiries, investigate circumstances, really on anything that is done in government but certainly in the case of looking at a child death. Certainly, the Citizens' Rep can do that and they certainly are required to do an unbiased investigation, an impartial investigation, and they too can make recommendations to government, to the government agency in question or the department in question, and they too can certainly then come back and report on their findings and make recommendations to this House of Assembly. We are the people who put the Citizens' Rep there.

I mentioned the other day the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate and they have been and they continue to be a strong advocate for the rights of children. They have very broad powers to investigate individual complaints as well as systemic issues. I know the Opposition House Leader mentioned some concerns around her dealings with the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate. We have to remember, Mr. Chair, that we as elected members put the Child and Youth Advocate in their place; they are an Officer of the House. If those concerns exist, I think that it is incumbent upon us to follow up on that with the Speaker. The Child and Youth Advocate – it is an independent office and they can review; they can investigate any matter related to government services affecting children or youth. This is whether or not a request or a complaint is made. They can do it upon just wanting to do it themselves. They can take it upon themselves to do it. They do not need to act upon a complaint. That is really a key piece, Mr. Chair.

They can conduct an investigation on the child or youth's behalf, or on the behalf of a group of children or youth in cases where advocacy is required, or for whatever the reason may be. They can make recommendations to government. They can make recommendations to an agency of the government or communities. They can make recommendations about legislation, policy, and practices, all in respecting the services and rights of children. As a result of the Turner recommendations in 2008, there were changes made to the Child and Youth Advocate Act. This was to further strengthen their powers in investigation in terms of subpoena and so on. That is another avenue for reviews to be complete when children die.

We also have the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. Currently, under section 5 of the current Fatalities Investigations Act, the Chief Medical Officer does have the authority to review the circumstances of accidental death, suicide, deaths attributable to negligence or while in institutional care. Wherein the public interest, this office can request that a public inquiry be done. There are also other review mechanisms in place when you look at police investigations and through the court system, people can avail of legal services and so on.

There are a number of avenues currently in place. I certainly would not want the impression to be left that when a child dies it is not looked into, it is not investigated, and that recommendations are not made. This is about strengthening what we currently have and making it really comprehensive. It was one of the fifty-eight recommendations in Turner. It is one of the final recommendations we are acting upon. It is a really good recommendation. This is a good bill, and I understand the members opposite agree that this is a good bill.

The other thing with this new act is the Child Death Review Committee will have the authority to go back and look at past cases if they see a trend occurring or a pattern occurring. Some of the examples that were used here in the House on Monday were fires in Labrador. It is in their purview to go back and review those cases should they so choose. That ability is there. The two other provinces that have brought this into legislation do not go back and look at past cases, but we are even strengthening it and giving that committee the opportunity to go back and look at past cases, Mr. Chair.

Just to put some numbers behind the fact there are certainly reviews conducted now when a child dies, this is just information from 2009 that I pulled out. Within our department, the Department of CYFS, there have been since 2009 ten death reviews completed. I also looked at the Child and Youth Advocate, and since 2009 they have done five official reviews of death that occurred in children as well. There is currently a process in place to review the death of a child. This is about enhancing what we currently have, strengthening what we currently have, and bringing in a team of experts. It is multidisciplinary and so on. There are many opportunities there to review a child death now, Mr. Chair.

As I said, prior to the establishment of this review committee, there has been and there continues to be the means for reviewing tragic circumstances leading to the death of a child and also looking a the systemic issues that may occur relating to children. These mechanisms serve a really good purpose, Mr. Chair. They have been available for the review of cases and issues up to the present time, and they will continue to be there. This will even strengthen that, Mr. Chair.

The process we have established is in-line with BC and Ontario, as I said. They have this legislation in place, and our understanding is it is working well there.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the minister that her time for speaking has elapsed.

MS JOHNSON: If I could just clue up?

CHAIR: The minister has leave.

MS JOHNSON: Just to clue up, Mr. Chair, I believe the members of the House here believe that this is a good bill. It is the right thing to do for our children. It is a multidisciplinary committee that will review the facts and circumstances around the death of a child.

What is really critical out of this bill, Mr. Chair, is it will enable the Province to learn from and help prevent untimely deaths of the children in Newfoundland and Labrador, all while ensuring that their best interests are met. This bill really speaks to our commitment to the process of review and learning from reviews and learning from those evaluations to work towards continuous improvements. We do not want any less than that for our children, Mr. Chair.

As I said, the Child Death Review Committee may base its report on an aggregate and a multidisciplinary analysis of the deaths reviewed. They can identify systemic problems. They can promote the prevention of deaths through education, protocol development, and dissemination of information, Mr. Chair. Certainly, they can make recommendations respecting the health, safety and well-being of children and pregnant women.

I want to say in closing that what we are bringing in here today, this process is a new lens to add to what we currently have, to strengthen it, to enhance it, but it is a new lens. It does exist in two other provinces. We could have done it in policy, Mr. Chair, but we really believe this is so important that we want to give it teeth. We want to raise the significance of this and put it into legislation and really help us learn from child deaths. No other provinces, as I said, have established committees to accept referrals from past cases but we are allowing the committee in this place, to go back and look at past deaths if it is part of their analysis for looking at trending based on a current referral.

As I said, officers of this House, like the Child and Youth Advocate and Citizens' Rep, they did and they still do have the ability to review past deaths. I really believe the amendments to this Fatalities Investigations Act is a very significant and positive step for the Province to learn from and to help prevent death to the children of our Province, Mr. Chair. We really want to ensure that their best interests are met and they deserve nothing less.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am just going to speak very briefly again to the amendment that I proposed. I am a little disappointed for sure that government has chosen not to accept this amendment. I was somewhat hopeful in the fact that they were prepared to give it more careful research before making a final decision, and I certainly appreciate that. However, Mr. Chair, my rationale for bringing forward the amendment and my arguments for it have not changed.

I realize and understand the abilities that have been given under legislation to the Citizens' Rep, the Child and Youth Advocate, and the medical examiner; however, Mr. Chair, I feel these entities have not adequately addressed the problem for which I have spoken. If they would have addressed that problem adequately, we would not be bringing forward the legislation on child death review in the Province in the first place.

I think it is significant to say that not only myself, but many others who have been engaged with the death of a child in this Province and are trying to get proper investigations and reviews done, suffice it to say they too have felt that the legislation and the responsibilities currently entrusted with these other legislative bodies have not been able to give them the results that they have been hoping to attain.

That is why, Mr. Chair, they have continued to lobby for a child death review in this Province. We are pleased with the legislation. Do not let my amendment be confused with the fact that I do not support what is being done here; I support it 100 per cent. I think it is definitely good legislation; it needed to happen, but our amendment really speaks to only one specific clause of this bill, and that is, Mr. Chair, that people who have lost a child in this Province deserve to have the right to have a child death review if they see fit to do so.

I understand the government's argument that they do not want to bog down the system with past investigations of children that may have died in the Province. I can certainly understand that. However, Mr. Chair, we are not asking that it be an open policy, as such; we are asking that the medical examiner would be given the right to be able to make recommendations as they see fit. Most of those recommendations would be based on systemic events that may have happened in our history that have not been properly researched or investigated. My rationale was that another child should not have to die to have that done, and I maintain that position, Mr. Chair.

I do understand the new legislation very well, and I do understand that future events will be looked at for systemic issues, Mr. Chair; however, it does not resolve the stalemate that we now find ourselves at, nor does it allow us to go forward with proper recommendations and proper changes within the policies of our Province to ensure for the protection of children. Therefore, Mr. Chair, I maintain my stand, and I still ask that members would support the amendment.

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also stand to support the amendment, and I believe that the amendment as it stands provides us – as a Province, as a community, as people who take care of our children – an opportunity to go forward, an opportunity to take a look and investigate further some clusters. We are not talking just about the odd individual death, but in some ways there are some aggregate cases, there are some clusters around suicides in Labrador, around suicides on the Island, around deaths due to substance abuse and drug overdoses.

We support the legislation. It is timely. It is actually way overdue, and we support it, but we would hope that the government would take leadership in this area and make it possible again for the Chief Medical Examiner and the review committee – because of their expertise, because of their commitment – to be able to reach back and to pull forward. This is about helping us all move forward. It is about helping us learn from something that already happened.

I would stress again, rather than looking at legislation as being retroactive, looking at the fact that in 2007, the Turner inquiry had made this recommendation; had this recommendation been fulfilled in a timely manner, we would not be in this position. Those deaths that we are talking about and perhaps others would have been subject to a Child Death Review Committee that would have been instigated by the Chief Medical Examiner.

Those deaths would have been examined and we would have learned from them in a more comprehensive way, with specific recommendations that would have been made public. Yes, they were examined, but this is different; the Child Death Review Committee with its expertise and what this legislation allows them and mandates them to do is something more substantial and something that gives us as a community something further to go on.

There were fifty-eight recommendations of Turner; this is the last one, as the minister said, the final one to implement. If it had been implemented in a timely manner, we would be way better off than we are today.

Again, I applaud the legislation. I applaud the amendment. I would hope that government members would see fit to look at supporting this clause and looking at it as a way to cover the time period from the time that the Turner inquiry had made this recommendation; it is over five years, almost six years in terms of the implementation of that recommendation. To reach back is not retroactive, but in fact simply addressing the issues that have happened since those recommendations have been done.

This is about giving information to our citizens. This is about all of us as a community benefiting. It is about all of the Province benefiting. I have confidence in the Chief Medical Examiner's ability to make decisions, to make recommendations, and also in the Child Death Review Committee's ability to do that as well. I have no fears about anything willy-nilly being done.

I am disappointed that the government is not supporting what I think is a very reasonable amendment. I would hope that people would think again about that. This is an opportunity that we have as a community of people to be able to go forward, to be able to learn from some very, very tragic events, and apply a certain level of expertise so that we can all go forward on this. It is giving to the community; it is giving to the families who are involved as well.

I would hope once again that people would look at this and reconsider their position on the amendment and take advantage of this opportunity.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: We will be voting on the amendment as put forward by the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

Is it the pleasures of the Committee to adopt the amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The amendment is defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall clause 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 3 carried.

CLERK: Clause 4.

CHAIR: Shall clause 4 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 4 carried.

CLERK: Clause 5.

CHAIR: Shall clause 5 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 5 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 6 to 9 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 6 through 9 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 6 through 9 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: A bill, An Act To Amend The Fatalities Investigations 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.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are in Committee, so I will simply call now from the Order Paper, Mr. Chair, Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act, Bill 37.

CHAIR: The Committee of the Whole will now consider Bill 37.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act". (Bill 37)

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: Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 3 to 5 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 3 through 5 carried.

CLERK: Clause 6.

CHAIR: Shall clause 6 carry?

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to get up and say, as I said in debate the other evening, there were good things in this piece of legislation, Bill 37, we thought, 65 per cent automatic certification being one and the very clear timelines for recognition of first collective agreement. We thought those were very good things to do. We felt the Special Project Order provisions included were also very reasonable and very much in keeping with what the Oakley report had suggested.

There were things that we did not want to see, and then there were things we wanted to see. I apologize to the House in advance because I feel I may sound like I am a broken record because we have been talking quite a lot in this Legislature –

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. KIRBY: The member says: Hear, hear!

We have been talking quite a bit in this Legislature about the issue of anti-replacement worker legislation.

Without further ado, I would like to move an amendment to clause 6 of the bill. Clause 6 of the bill relates to section 25 of the act. Section 25 of the act deals with: prohibitions relating to employers. We felt that this was the most appropriate place to put this amendment.

This is an amendment to Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act. Clause 6 of the bill is amended by adding, after the proposed subsection 25.(4) – so this adds a subsection 25(5). Article 25.(5) of the bill, as amended, would say: During a lockout or strike authorized under this act an employer must not use the unpaid or paid services of a person (a) who is hired or engaged after the earlier of the date on which the notice to commence collective bargaining is given or the date on which bargaining begins; (b) who ordinarily works at another of the employer's places of operations; (c) who is transferred to a place of operations in respect of which the strike or lockout is taking place, if he or she was transferred after the earlier of the date on which the notice to commence bargaining is given or the date on which bargaining begins; or (d) who is employed, engaged or supplied to the employer by another person to perform (i) the work of the employee in the bargaining unit that is on strike or locked out; or (ii) the work ordinarily done by a person who is performing the work of an employee in the bargaining unit that is on strike or locked out.

Then, subsection (6) An employer shall not require any person who works at a place of operations in respect of which the strike or lockout is taking place to perform any work of an employee in the bargaining unit that is on strike or is locked out without the consent of the person.

Subsection (7) An employer must not (a) refuse to employ or continue to employ a person; (b) threaten to dismiss a person or otherwise threaten a person; (c) discriminate against a person in regard to employment or a term or condition of employment; or (d) intimidate or coerce or impose a pecuniary or other penalty on a person, because of a person's refusal to perform any or all of the work of an employee in the bargaining unit that is on strike or locked out.

That is the substance of the amendment. It is seconded by the Member of the House of Assembly for the District of Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

CHAIR: Will the member provide us with copies of the amendment, please?

MR. KIRBY: Absolutely.

CHAIR: Given the length of the amendment, we will take a brief recess to consider whether it is in order.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I have considered the amendment put forward by the Member for St. John's North. The amendment is a lengthy amendment. It starts off by amending clause 6 of the bill, and I would ask direction. Shall I dispense with the reading of the entire text?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

CHAIR: Yes.

The amendment is in order, and I will go back to the Member for St. John's North to speak to the amendment.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the amendment.

We have had labour disputes in this Province where employers have saw fit to bring in replacement workers, or scabs as known in the parlance of the labour movement. After I was elected in October of last year, I took it upon myself after being appointed a labour critic for the New Democratic Party caucus, I started a petition and circulated it throughout the Province. I spoke to quite a number of people in Newfoundland and Labrador about this particular issue, and quite a number of people have signed the petition, have agreed with it.

Then, in February of this year, we had the standoff between Ocean Choice International and the FFAW trawlermen from the Newfoundland Lynx. That was an unfortunate situation, a strike that was prolonged by the use of replacement workers. Much like what we saw in Voisey's Bay, but of course, not quite the same duration. I believe it was ten weeks that that labour dispute went on.

We know there is quite a lot of support. In fact, after we talked about it here in the Legislature the other day, CBC carried a story on the radio and the television and on their Web site. When I was home with my son this morning, as I always am, listening to the news, the reporter was saying that they had a poll. That may be unscientific, but they had a poll on the CBC Web site in the last few days that asked people: Do you believe that we should have anti-replacement workers in Newfoundland and Labrador? I believe it was about 50 per cent, roughly 50 per cent of the people who responded to the poll – over a thousand people – responded positively and said, yes, we agree with it. Now, we know there are others who do not agree with it, and I respect that difference of opinion, but we do have – this is not alien in Canada, and we have talked about the provinces that have it. We know Quebec has had it for quite a long time, and British Columbia has had it since the 1990s. We say, well, that is only two provinces. That is two provinces that represent over one-third of a population of this country.

I also say, I note the minister has pointed this out quite correctly that Ontario did have this legislation when the Liberal Member of Parliament, Bob Rae, was Premier of that province. They did bring in that legislation under an NDP government. It was subsequently taken out. It was reversed by the government of Mike Harris. We know that was one of the most regressive, neoconservative, perhaps paleoconservative governments that we have ever had in the history of the Country of Canada. I really would not hold that up as a hallmark because I think no government wants to be holding up Mike Harris' government as an exemplar of how to do business, because I think that government was unnecessarily harsh on the poor, unnecessarily harsh on others, including workers.

I will not go a lot further on this because I know my colleague from Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi would like to have a few words on the amendment as well. I would say that this is entirely reasonable and it is in spirit with what the minister had said at the outset in introducing this legislation, because he talked about the need for there to be balance. I think this restores some balance in the event of strikes or lockouts because it enables people to bargain with good faith at the bargaining table with employers, and that process is not impeded or prolonged by the use of replacement workers, by the use of scab labour on the job site.

I will leave it at that. I hope members will consider the amendment. I believe it is within reason and the language – if anybody is interested – was adapted from that which is in use in British Columbia at present.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the amendment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is a pleasure to get up and speak to this bill again while it is in Committee. It took some time to do this bill, Mr. Chair. This was thirty years since we have had any significant changes to the Labour Relations Act in this Province. It was something that started quite some time ago. It started back in 2009, I believe. We had an Employment Relations Committee formed. We have, since that time, had the Voisey's Bay Industrial Inquiry and, of course, we have also examined our Special Project Orders when we had a gentleman, Mr. Oakley, do a review of that.

Mr. Chair, this was quite an exhaustive process. Our main goal in this process was to create a balance. We knew we had to bring our legislation up-to-date; we knew we had to modernize our legislation. We are competing against national companies, international companies, and bringing business here. We are doing a good job of it, but, in all honesty, our labour legislation had lagged behind a bit. Our goal was to create a balance. As you can tell from some of the media hits that we have had and you go out and look through the media, you will quickly find out that there is quite a balance of opinions out there. You will see one side of the equation totally against certain things; the other side of the equation are against the other things. They are not all against the same things; they are in favour of certain things.

Mr. Chair, we have to find that balance. We thought by introducing replacement worker legislation – and being a red Tory, you look at all possibilities. You do look at all the options that were on the table and were put before me. It was probably one of the things that slowed me down the most, that I wanted to do the most research on, that I wanted to know the most about, Mr. Chair. I quickly discovered that this is one of the most divisive things between labour and business that currently exists. Views are very, very polarized, depending on if you are on the employer's side or if you are on the labour side. The hon. Member for St. John's North mentioned, yes, there are only two provinces that have it; it is Quebec and BC. He is equally right when he said that Ontario did have it for a short time and then had it removed.

Mr. Chair, there have been a number of studies done and a couple that I have been made familiar with and spent some time looking through. By the way, I did not read just one side of this debate. I certainly took the time to read both sides of the argument. I just want to refer you to a couple, Mr. Chair, if I could. In 2006, there was a federal government report done. At that time they looked at the jurisdictions of Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec. Mr. Chair, they quickly came to the conclusion – and what they did actually they took it over three decades. They took a three-year period in the 1970s; they took a three-year period in the 1990s, and a three-year period in early-2000. They had a comparison of places that had replacement worker legislation and places that did not.

Mr. Chair, there was a trend that was evident from my perspective and the report said so. Just to give you one example – rather than getting into all the details of the whole report, just from one period, the 2003 to the 2005 period for example, Mr. Chair. We have Quebec, that does have replacement worker legislation and they had lost forty-seven days, compared to Ontario that did not have the legislation and lost thirty-eight days. Mr. Chair, that was the trend. That was not just that decade, Mr. Chair; that was three separate decades that occurred in.

Mr. Chair, then in 2008, Supreme Court Chief Justice Peter Annis – I am not sure, Annis could be spelled a different way, and I could pronounce it – but we will call him Annis anyway. Mr. Chair, his conclusion was evident; when he examined the legislation across the country, Mr. Chair, he could not come down on either side of the debate. His thinking was that it was inconclusive, just that, and he could not confirm whether this worked or whether it did not.

Mr. Chair, my colleague from St. John's North – one of his learned colleagues, I will call him, one of the Member for St. John's North's learned colleagues, a gentleman by the name of Professor Morley Gunderson, wrote a report called Bans on Strike Replacement Workers: Pouring oil on the fire, was the way he titled this report. This report looked in depth at replacement worker legislation. The professor concluded that by having this legislation – and he did a synopsis in a number of different places – you were 50 per cent more likely to have a labour dispute than without it. That was the conclusion he came to.

Mr. Chair, I am not going to go on too long, but I just want to get this point out, too. In 2009, there was an article written by Paul Duffy and Susan Johnson.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Chair, that is what I would call one of those six of one and half a dozen of the other articles. They did say that replacement worker legislation did increase the number of labour disputes in jurisdictions that had it. However, what they did say was that it shortened the amount of time of the labour dispute.

Mr. Chair, that was the kind of article I was seeing. That was the kind of work being done by professors and by Supreme Court judges. These were the kinds of analyses that were presented to me, Mr. Chair. I had to say no to replacement worker legislation, and as a government we had to say no, simply because the arguments were not there.

I understand it. I hate to see labour disputes. I and the government we have here, Mr. Chair, believe there has to be way for both parties to come to their own resolution, not a forced resolution. We want these parties to come together and work. It is very easy, of course, when this kind of an incident happens and when there are replacement workers who come in to become involved, Mr. Chair – obviously people cry out in anger, in frustration. You know, I empathize with these people. I really do. I can see where you can be upset, but I still believe that the onus is on both parties to come to an agreement. Based on the reports that I have read and I have shared with my colleagues on this side of the House, Mr. Chair, it is certainly inconclusive the value and the effectiveness of replacement worker legislation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

I am quite happy to stand and speak to this amendment, which we have presented from a very serious perspective. Since I have been in this House – I was first elected in the fall of 2006 – there have been a number of lengthy strikes in this Province, some not as long as others. The first one that I faced was in April of 2007 when the support staff at Voisey's Bay went on strike. They were on strike for two months at that time.

The contractors brought in replacement workers, because it was contractors at the mine whose workers were on strike; they brought in replacement workers, resulting in a tremendous amount of tension on the picket line and actually violent acts by the replacement workers, violent acts that were shown to actually have happened. This situation of people from this Province being pitched against each other, and being in a situation where violence actually happens, is something that we do not want, Mr. Chair. It is something that none of us should want to see in this Province of ours.

At that time, at the time of the Voisey's Bay strike in 2007, the NDP did join with the labour movement who called for anti-scab legislation. I think we should point out that this is a position of the labour movement. The labour movement would really want to see anti-scab legislation in this Province; there have been at least one, if not two letters from the current President of the Federation of Labour of Newfoundland and Labrador indicating a desire for anti-scab legislation. I know individual unions have exactly the same position, and it has always been the position of the New Democratic Party.

In 2007 there was a promise from then Premier Danny Williams and then MHA for Happy Valley-Goose Bay, for Lake Melville; they promised the union local they would intervene. Unions and the NDP followed up with letters, both to Mr. Hickey who was the MHA at the time and to the Premier, and questions were asked in the House. At that time the minister responsible, who was Minister Burke at the time, said that such legislation will be examined as part of review of the Labour Relations Act. I guess the government did, I suppose from their perspective, review it.

We had the minister just now tell us what he looked at and what he studied. Unfortunately, it seems to me, they did not listen to anything that the labour movement has been saying. They listened to nothing about what the unions were asking for. What they are doing in saying no to this amendment, which the minister has indicated he will be doing, is rejecting the position of the labour movement.

The minister has made reference to – and so has my colleague from St. John's North – the anti-scab legislation in BC and Quebec. Let's look at that. Let's do a more in-depth look at what we have there in BC and Quebec. Those two provinces themselves represent 37 per cent of the Canadian population, 12 million out of 33 million.

In BC and Quebec, the anti-scab laws have been in place for a long time; in Quebec since 1977 and in BC since 1993. Now I appreciate the minister is looking at documents and looking at research people have done but I would be rather encouraged if he had told me that he looked in-depth at the history of what has happened in Quebec since 1977 and in BC since 1993, and why in both of those provinces the legislation has been maintained even though – especially in BC – they have had many different changes in the political stripe of government. No government in BC, whether a Social Credit, whether it is Liberal, whether it is NDP, and I think that is all they have there – when it comes to the western provinces they have some different provincial parties, but I think they are the three in BC – that not one of those political parties saw fit to change that law.

In BC, they obviously must be happy with the anti-scab legislation because no matter what the political stripe of government has been there, they have not chosen to change the law. The law has been intact. They have a good history with the use of that law. A study does show – and I think the minister acknowledged one part of this – that where you do have anti-scab legislation, that if you do have a strike, it is a shorter strike. It makes sense, because the company or the corporation cannot hire workers to continue production, for example, or the offering of a service. They come back to the table more quickly, which is the whole idea of having the anti-scab legislation, that a company cannot use replacement workers as a way to just keep earning money while people are out on strike.

Let us remember what it means to be out on strike. I do not know how many of us in the House have done it. I have been doing it for a good forty years of standing on picket lines, sometimes myself because I was on strike as a teacher and other times in solidarity with others. It is no fun, and people are not out there because they want to be out there. They are out there because they do not know what choice they have. They have no choice.

If this government is saying it cares about the people and it stands for the people, then we should want to put in place something that would ensure that never again will we have workers out for two months, or workers out for eight months, or workers out for eighteen months. Standing on that picket line in Happy Valley-Goose Bay over eighteen months in minus forty, and then with the extremes that happen in Labrador – though I am jealous of their extremes sometimes – almost plus forty. It was an awful experience, and I stood on the picket line at different times in both of those conditions.

We should never want workers to feel they have no choice but to do that. That is the issue, they have no other choice. The one thing that our labour laws – and it is a universal feature of our labour laws, is the right to strike. The one thing that we give workers that our labour laws recognize, they do have the right to strike. We take the right away from them when we do not have anti-scab legislation. The anti-scab legislation confirms the right of the workers to strike. Take it away and their right to strike is nullified.

The frustration that I feel, it is hard to express. I listened to the minister; he says he wants a balance. Well, if you want a balance, Mr. Minister – and I say this, Mr. Chair, if they want a balance - then we should see some equality between the strikers and the company. The strike is there to try to give the workers something that they can use.

When we do not have anti-scab legislation, I am afraid to see-saw goes with the workers down here. It is a total imbalance without anti-scab legislation. The fact that the company, or the corporation, the employer, can bring in workers, can continue to dig in the mine or can continue to fish in our waters, and the workers are out there on a pittance having to hold back payments on mortgages and do not know how they are going to keep going because they have no other choice – the balance is gone. I cannot understand that the minister does not see that.

Anti-scab legislation is what causes balance, because it stops the company from having the power to nullify the benefit of the workers being on strike. I cannot speak too strongly to why we should be putting this in place. I want to point out that in Ontario, when the legislation was brought in – when it was gotten rid of, it had only been in place for a very short period of time. When the Harris government – one of the most right-wing governments we have had in the country; not the most, but one of – came in, one of the very first things – it was not the first; probably the second or third thing they did, without even testing the legislation; without even knowing if it was going to work because it had not had time to be used, they got rid of it based on ideology.

The minister made some reference here in the House recently to the difference in philosophy between our two parties. I guess this is one of the signs of the difference in philosophy between our two parties.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: That will be fine, Mr. Chair.

I will get to speak again, so thank you very much.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am rising to speak to the amendment in Bill 37. Mr. Chair, I can see certainly why this amendment has come about. It is obviously to do with events in our history where we have seen very prolonged strikes, and probably to try to justify the rationale behind those prolonged strikes by the fact that many of these companies were able to bring in replacement workers and carry on with their responsibilities while others sat on the picket line trying to claim, Mr. Chair, what they felt were fair and just working rights.

Mr. Chair, I was one of the people who visited the picket line in Happy Valley-Goose Bay on a couple of occasions when Vale workers were out on strike. At that time I had an opportunity to talk with many of these workers. They certainly felt a large part of the reason they were on the picket line through the winter and into the following spring was simply because other people had been replacing them in doing their job at the Voisey's Bay mine site.

Mr. Chair, the government did commit to undertake a review of replacement worker legislation and to look at whether this could be a fit in Newfoundland and Labrador. I remember at that time in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, the former member – not the current member who sits there today as the Member for Lake Melville, but the former member – certainly made a big public issue out of the fact they were going to look at this anti-replacement worker legislation to see if there was a way to do this in the Province.

It was my understanding the government did undertake to do that through a coalition of influence by the union, the business community, and the industry within the Province. I never did get the opportunity, Mr. Chair, to see any of that information or what the results of that consultation were. I certainly cannot speak to what the recommendations might have been or if, in fact, there were any recommendations at all that came out of that.

Mr. Chair, it is unfortunate always in our history when we have prolonged strikes. It is obvious that workers go to the picket line and they do not go there lightly. I do not think unions lead workers there lightly; in fact, I think they do so very reluctantly in some cases. They have been able to use their strike position as a negotiating tool, as the minister likes to call it, tools in the toolbox. Well, one of the tools in the toolbox for unions has always been the ultimatum of either walking the line or walking the work if the deal is not as they see fit. As a result of that, we have seen many union leaders lead employees into strike positions.

I know, Mr. Chair, for a fact, in talking to many of the workers who were led to the picket line in Goose Bay during the Vale strike that, if there had have been an opportunity months into this strike for some of these workers to go back to work, they certainly would have went. I have had that told to me many times. In fact, I sat in the living rooms of people who were part of the union and on strike at the time and they were saying this has gone on long enough now; we have got to get back to work. So I think that while the union led the workers there, the company's stalemating the negotiations of a fair deal certainly led a lot of workers to become very frustrated, not only were they of the mindset of violating the company's wishes but they were at the point where they were ready to violate the union's wishes as well. Because all of a sudden, Mr. Chair, it became about putting food on the table.

What I saw in Goose Bay, at that time, was a lot of these workers leave the picket line and go to work in Western Canada. A lot of them went out West and they went to work, and they worked there for a number of months. Some of them, I think, in fact, stayed there and did not even go back to work at the site – although the majority of them did. I know the current Member for Lake Melville will know this file, because I know he knows some of the people who were on the picket line at the time. They did go out West and go to work. The stalemate between the union and company went on so long that they felt, as workers, that they were really caught in the middle – I think that is a fair statement – and that they wanted to go and look for work elsewhere.

So, Mr. Chair, is anti-replacement worker legislation going to be the answer to long, prolonged strikes in this Province? I do not know. I would listen to what the minister said in terms of what happened in other provinces and the fact that strikes went on longer in two of the provinces that already have this legislation. So, I do not know, Mr. Chair, if it is the answer. I do not know if it shortens the strike time, but I do know that in this particular case of Vale's strike, the workers were in a position and the union at the time, where I do not think they saw any other alternatives for themselves. They saw other workers boarding planes for Voisey's Bay, they saw other workers being flown in, taking their jobs when they were on the picket line – and that in itself can become very frustrating.

Mr. Chair, I am never one to believe that even though when we think it might be the solution sometimes, I am not one to really believe that we just run out and do things without actually having full, thought out and full merit in terms of what we are doing. My biggest problem with the amendment that I am seeing here today is that it has not seen any real public debate in the Province. It has not seen any consultation that I am aware of. I know I have been contacted by the Board of Trade and by the manufacturers' association who is against the amendment like this. I can only imagine that they would be; I cannot imagine too many businesses that would be.

I have to say I have not been contacted by any union in the Province since this bill has been tabled in the House to say that they would like to see this amendment in the legislation. I would have thought, Mr. Chair, that if they did, they would have at least made the effort to contact us as the Official Opposition and to ask for our support on this amendment, and they have not. I am saying that for the benefit of the NDP as well as for the public, that no union has called us to say that they wanted to see this amendment in the bill. Or, in fact, that they wanted to see the language that is contained in the amendment that I am seeing here.

Mr. Chair, until we have had an opportunity to consult with the unions and to look at the language that would be in the amendment, as an Official Opposition we would not be able to support the amendment as it has been tabled today.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

I do not know if anybody on this side wanted to speak, but obviously they can get up after I speak. There are a number of points that I want to continue making. I want to speak specifically to the commission of inquiry into Voisey's Bay. It was an industrial inquiry. The recommendations were quite intensive as we know. Some of those recommendations – there were six of them, but they were well-thought-out – have been taken by government and are being used in the amendments to the Labour Relations Act, and are in this bill.

One of the things government did not seem to listen to is what the inquiry found with regard to the Voisey's Bay strike. It is important that we look at that. While the inquiry did not make a recommendation with regard to anti-scab legislation, it still had some very key things to say about it. One of the key things about anti-scab is extremely important. It noted that the use of the scab labour enabled "Vale to go forward without the economic pressure which the traditional notion of strike presupposes." In other words, the idea of the strike is to give some leverage to the workers, but because Vale were allowed to hire scab labour, because there is nothing saying they could not, they had no economic pressure.

While I would point out, Mr. Chair, that there was tremendous economic pressure, both on the workers who were on the picket line and on the union that was supporting them, because the union paid strike pay, which is a very small amount of money to help keep them going during those eighteen months. The company had no economic pressure at all. They continued producing, they continued making money. The largest mining corporation in the world, the largest mining corporation in the world making billions of dollars in mining in the world without any economic pressure during these eighteen months. This is one thing the inquiry is talking about; they were able to go forward without any economic pressure.

The use of the replacement workers is seen by regulators to undermine the ability of employees and their unions both to engage in the collective bargaining and impose economic sanction against their employer. This is the responsibility of government. It is not the responsibility of government to sit at the table and to listen only to the corporate side. On this one, they are absolutely refusing to listen to the voice of labour in this Province.

In the presentation to the inquiry, the Federation of Labour spoke about the whole issue of – something that the inquiry actually picked up on – that globalization, multinational corporations, and our changing economy mean we must ensure laws are updated to protect working people and their labour rights. They went on and said, they recommended dealing with the option of a binding arbitration panel, which the inquiry did recommend and which the government has rejected as well. A binding arbitration panel to settle disputes where collective bargaining has truly failed and the strike lockout provision has proved ineffective. The Federation of Labour pushed that. The Federation of Labour also pushed in its presentation to the inquiry the issue of having anti-scab legislation. The Federation of Labour still pushes both of those things. They do it publicly. They have had public letters that say that, and government is refusing to listen to that voice.

We have been told a number of times by different ministers responsible for labour relations in the Province, and I have been told several times on this floor: Oh, the issue is at the table. We have our tripartite discussion, and the issue comes out in the tripartite discussion. I cannot imagine the labour people at that table, if this has been discussed at that table, have been in agreement with what has been going on at the table. We have been led to believe by government that they are having constant consultations and constant discussions around anti-scab legislation at the tripartite table. I have had it said to me numerous times here in this House over the last five years as I have raised this issue.

The Vale strike should be teaching us – it taught the inquiry. The inquiry got the message. It should be teaching us that we have a painful lesson. It was a painful lesson to learn with regard to how global corporations can use their diversity, their geographic reach to undermine the wages and the conditions of workers in any particular country.

It is no good for the government to say they are interested in looking at that. They are interested in looking at making sure that if a company from outside of Canada wants to buy a Canadian company from here on in that we should look at their history of labour relations before saying we are going to let them buy a Canadian company. It is no good for this government to say they believe that, which I was told is a policy direction they are going in, if they are not also at the same time going to give some protection to our workers here in Newfoundland and Labrador from a company that is already here and does not believe in our labour relations culture, and that does not believe in what historically we are used to in this country.

I am not going to put words in his mouth, but the Minister Responsible for Labour Relations did stand in the House and say, two days ago on Tuesday, that the reason he could not put binding arbitration into the labour relations, in cases where we are talking about protracted strikes and to make sure they do not go on any longer when it looks like it is absolutely impossible for the two sides to come together, was simply because philosophically his party and the government do not believe in it. Philosophically they do not believe in binding arbitration. I am being led to assume, because the labour movement has been pounding this issue for a long time that philosophically he does not believe in anti-scab legislation either.

Well, philosophically I believe in the rights of the workers, and philosophically I believe in a level playing field. My intelligence tells me that not being able to hire scab workers takes away the level playing field. If it takes away the level playing field, then a vote against this amendment is a vote against the workers of this Province and their need to have protection from companies. Whether it is a multinational company or whether it is one of our own companies here in Newfoundland and Labrador, like what the fishery trawler workers had to deal with, with OCI; no matter which it is we have to be there to protect the workers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: When we take away the strength of their strikes by allowing scab labour to be hired, then we have taken away the level playing field. There is no way to get around that; there is no way to deny it. That is what I am challenging the minister on right now. You cannot deny it; the level playing field is gone. Forget balance, forget saying you care about the workers, forget saying that you care about the people of the Province. Mr. Chair, the actions are speaking louder than the words.

Thank you

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The amendment is defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

MS MICHAEL: Can I call division (inaudible)?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: No? I do not know; I am asking.

CHAIR: You can do Division, but in Division you have to have three members with you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

CHAIR: Division has been called.

Call in the members, please.

CHAIR: Are the Whips ready?

CHAIR: No? Okay, we will wait another couple of minutes.

Order, please!

The Whips are ready?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ready, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the amendment?

Those in favour of the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Ms Michael, Mr. Kirby, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Mitchelmore, Ms Rogers.

CHAIR: Those against the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Kennedy, Mr. King, Ms Sullivan, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Jackman, Mr. French, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Felix Collins, Mr. Dalley, Mr. Kent, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Granter, Mr. McGrath, Mr. Sandy Collins, Mr. Brazil, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Little, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Dinn, Mr. Cornect, Mr. Littlejohn, Mr. Crummell, Mr. Pollard, Mr. Cross, Mr. Peach, Mr. Lane, Mr. Russell, Mr. Ball, Ms Jones, Mr. Andrew Parsons, Mr. Joyce.

CLERK: Mr. Chair, the ayes five; the nays thirty-two.

CHAIR: The amendment is defeated.

Shall clause 6 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 6 carried.

CLERK: Clause 7.

CHAIR: Shall clause 7 carry?

The Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am just going to spend a few minutes to speak on clause 7. It is concerning when an application is made and if there are 65 per cent of the people, the members of a company, who sign membership cards, there is automatic certification.

One of the reasons I have a concern with that – and I will bring it to the minister's attention. I know of a certain situation – and there is no need to get into the names – whereby the union organizers went into a certain business and what happened, Mr. Chair, there were a lot of commitments that were made to the workers themselves. There were a lot of commitments made about the amount of wages they were going to get, a lot of the benefits, sick time, pension, a lot of things that could never be fulfilled, Mr. Chair.

What happened, there were a fair number of cards signed in this certain union drive. When it went to the board, and when the vote was taken – because when the actual details came out, it was rejected and it was soundly rejected, Mr. Chair – the actual vote was soundly rejected. What you have here, in my opinion, if a union drive goes in – I am not against unions by no means. I am not against unions organizing, but I think – as the minister said himself – things have to be balanced and things have to fair. If people are going to vote for a union, it is like any other aspect in a democracy; there should be a vote.

What happens if we walk in – and the example I just gave, Mr. Chair, where there are a lot of commitments made to the workers. People involved knew that these commitments could not be kept. They knew they were promises made just to get people to sign cards. In some cases, Mr. Chair, there were people who said they were contacted five or six, seven, eight, nine, ten times. They signed the card just to get the people away from their door and away from calling them at the house and in other forums. If an employer did it, it would be called intimidation.

Mr. Chair, when they signed the cards, and also when it went to the board, if 65 per cent signed the cards it was automatic certification. I fundamentally have a problem with that. I think if you had a threshold under the current legislation where if you get 40 per cent or 45 per cent of the people signing the cards, forty-five to sixty-five or even higher, that you have an automatic vote. I agree with that, Mr. Chair. I agree that the threshold probably should not have to be up to sixty-five, seventy to have a vote, or if you can get a threshold to 40 per cent to 45 per cent, Mr. Chair, then we can have the vote.

I just gave one example, Mr. Chair, that I was aware of and that I knew personally. Some people at the time – and I am going a while back – contacted me about the union drive itself and about the commitments that were made that could never be lived up to, the promises that were made, and the amount of times they were visiting someone's house. Mr. Chair, in contrast – then again, this is all about balance, as the minister said on numerous occasions. In contrast, if there is a union in place and if 65 per cent of the people vote for decertification, you still have to have a vote. If you have to have a vote for decertification, in my opinion when you get a number – you do not even have to have 50 percent plus one, 40 per cent, 45 per cent, enough to show that yes, there is an intent and there is a will by some of the workers to have a union. Mr. Chair, even if you put it up to 50 per cent of the people, who the board decides are employees of the company, then have a vote. Let people have their right to say yes or no, Mr. Chair.

If you are going to have it, Mr. Chair, to the point whereby if 65 per cent can cause automatic certification, then it should be back again. If 65 per cent sign to have it decertified, if you follow the logic, then it should be decertified. I just want to bring that concern to the minister. It is a concern of mine personally. It is a concern raised to me by some people who, when I mention this bill to them, had concerns about it. Two in particular, Mr. Chair, went through the process of having the union certified. Also, Mr. Chair, what happened in one case is that when the vote actually came in the percentage was very low, very, very low, who actually voted for the union once they found out the commitments being made.

I will just bring it to the minister's attention, that this 65 per cent automatic certification can lead to a lot of situations where – and I will say to the minister once more before I sit down, there are times when there are commitments made, and people sign cards to commitments because they are told of all these commitments that are being made. When you actually come down to the fine details before the vote, you realize that the commitments are not there. They cannot live up to the commitments then, Mr. Chair. I think people should then have the opportunity to vote, not just a stamp and say: Okay, automatic certification. I ask the minister if he could take that into consideration for this bill because it is a concern, Mr. Chair.

It is not taking away any union rights whatsoever to vote for a union, absolutely not. It is actually bringing it in-line and more balanced to ensure that everybody has a right to vote. If the threshold is 45 per cent or 50 per cent of the employees at the company, Mr. Chair, that is fine. At least it gives everybody the right to look at what is in front of them before they vote. As we all know and we all say to people, before you vote and before you cast a ballot, you should always have the information in front of you. The people who are working at a plant should not be given false promises or false hope, Mr. Chair. They should be given the facts and let them enjoy their democratic right to have a vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to move an amendment to clause 7 of the bill, amended by deleting the proposed section 47.1(2) by substituting the following: Where a vote is taken it shall be taken no more than 5 days, excluding holidays and weekends, after receipt by the board of the application for certification. Mr. Chair, that is a very minor adjustment.

Basically, this will say that the vote has to be done within a five-day period. The previous – and it was a typo, is the best way I could describe it, in that the lawyers in Justice would tell us that it could be taken any time. This would tighten it up saying that it had to be done within the five-day period and not outside of the five-day period.

That is why I move the amendment, Mr. Chair, and I will ask the table to make a decision. That is seconded by the Minister of Fisheries.

CHAIR: It has been moved by the Member for Conception Bay South an amendment to clause 7. I will dispense with the reading of the entire text. The amendment is in order.

The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency, to speak to the amendment?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: No?

Shall the amendment as put forward by the Member for Conception Bay South carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt clause 7 as amended?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 7, as amended, carried.

CLERK: Clause 8.

CHAIR: Shall clause 8 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 8 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 9 to 22 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 9 through 22 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 9 through 22 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 Labour Relations 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 Bill 37 with 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 with amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Deputy House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Chair, I call from the Order Paper, No. 4, Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act No. 2. (Bill 38)

CHAIR: The Committee of the Whole will now begin debate on Bill 38, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act No. 2.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act No. 2". (Bill 38)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 4 inclusive carry?

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased again to have an opportunity to speak to Bill 38 – which I have here somewhere in this pile of paper on my desk – An Act to Amend the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act No. 2. At risk of repeating myself, as I said in debate, I had complimentary things to say about the previous bill despite its various deficiencies, but unfortunately, I have nothing complimentary to say about Bill 38.

I cannot support this as it stands, because I do not believe it achieves what the minister is saying he is trying to accomplish, which is to provide a balance in our labour laws in Newfoundland and Labrador. I really feel like this creates an imbalance and I will just briefly explain why.

This particular clause was inserted into Bill 37. It has also now been inserted into Bill 38; it is a key provision and it has been inserted in there, to my best understanding, without any consultation. The minister has said, and the government has said repeatedly during this session, and we have heard them time and again saying that they base their decisions on consultation. When we discussed the anti-bullying private member's resolution that I brought forward earlier in this session, the Minister of Education and a number of other distinguished former educators on the other side of the House in the Government stood up and said, one after the after, there has not been enough consultation on this.

Well, there has been no consultation on this provision, at least not with the public sector union leaders, the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public and Private Employees and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour; my best understanding is that they have not been consulted on this.

This creates a poor dynamic, in my opinion. I will explain why, at risk of repeating myself. In a situation where there is vote on offer, and it is a private sector employer, the employees and the employer go back to the table and work on working out other provisions for a collective agreement. In this instance if government, the employer, basically forces employees to vote – and basically government is circumventing the duly elected negotiating team for a particular public sector union. If government is successful in going to the labour board and having them circumvent the leadership of the union and the employees reject this, the government can take out the nuclear option and they can legislate workers back to work. They already have a very, very powerful tool in that form.

I really think this is unfair to public servants. I fished out earlier – I know this was discussed the other day – all of the collective agreements that are set to expire March 31, June 30, and August 31 of this year. There are quite a number of public servants in this Province in every sort of aspect of public service, whether they are educators, civil servants who work for government in this building and other government buildings across the Province, people who work in hospitals, people who work in all facets of the public service, will have their collective agreements up for negotiation this year – their collective agreements will come to an end and they will be negotiating new collective agreements. It is highly coincidental that in a bargaining year – and the minister has claimed this is not the case, but I find it very difficult to understand that this would be done in a bargaining year. I do not think it really helps the labour relations environment when it comes to public servants. I do not think this enhances anyone's position other than the government. It tips the balance in favour of government and creates a genuine inequity where one should not be created.

For that reason, I am going to be moving an amendment to this clause. This is very, very simple. It is an amendment to Bill 38, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act No. 2. It simply states: The bill is amended by deleting the proposed section 26.1. The amendment is seconded by the Member of the House of Assembly for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

CHAIR: Order, please!

We have an amendment proposed by the Member for St. John's North. The amendment proposes to delete an entire clause. According to our parliamentary authorities, O'Brien and Bosc, an amendment that attempts to delete an entire clause is out of order. So the amendment is not in order.

Does the member wish to resume his speaking time on the bill?

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is unfortunate that this is out of order because I think that – this is the position of the New Democratic Party Caucus – the only way to deal with this is to drop the provision in its entirety from the proposed bill. I would say that we are all proud, every member of the hon. House, I can honestly say that we are all very proud of the work that public servants do. They keep the lights on. They keep the roads clear. They are there whether it is a sunny day or it is a time of disaster in Newfoundland and Labrador. We can always count on our public servants to take care of us and to take care of this Province.

I ask you to think about who it is that this is really going to impact, because it is going to impact your friends, it is going to impact your family members, it is going to be impacting the men and women who live on your street, your neighbours. It has a wide impact. It is going to impact workers in all variety of work at the College of the North Atlantic; the Eastern School District; Marine Institute; a variety of workers at the University, including custodial workers, enforcement, lecturers, and maintenance staff; teachers in this Province; student assistants; Western School District; people who work in long-term care facilities that take care of our elderly parents; hospital support staff; other health professionals. It impacts quite a number of people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I do not see this as advancing us. I know the minister has said that this provision is in existence in other provinces in Canada. I think just because there is retrograde legislation in other provinces of Canada, I do not think we should go in that direction. We have said time and again here in this Legislature sometimes we have to go our own way and do our own thing; I think the best thing to do is for us now all to vote against this particular bill, because I think that is the only way to undo the potential damage that this will do to a good faith, proper, collective bargaining with our public servants in Newfoundland and Labrador. I will leave it at that.

Thank you for the opportunity to try to amend this and to speak on the bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A couple of issues that I would like to speak to, Mr. Chair; I guess the two issues that seem to be coming out of this from the Third Party and from some of the other people out there have been two items: one is timing and one is the consultation piece. I would like to address that, and I think it is important that I do address that.

Before I do, I want to revert back to the balance. Mr. Chair, like I have said many times, and when interviewed, if you cherry-pick any one of these issues, you can make an argument for both sides of the debate. You can say why it should be there, and you can say why it should not be there – very good discussion on it, Mr. Chair. I am going to tell you why we believe, as the regulator, this should be there.

Mr. Chair, before I do that, I want to address two major concerns, the first one being the consultation piece. The ERC is an extension of another committee, if you will. The Employment Relations Committee is made up of the Federation of Labour, the IBEW, NAPE, which this affects, of course, CAW, and CUPE from the labour side. On the business side, you have the Business Coalition, the Employers' Council, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, of course, and two other representatives from private businesses in our community who agreed to sit down and sit on this panel. We also had four people from government. It was a tripartite committee.

Mr. Chair, there are issues on that committee, some are private and some are public, that affect both. What happened was the committee sat down and they drew up a big, long list. Labour brought so many issues, business brought so many issues, government brought so many issues, and they realized – this issue was brought forward by private business. They were all sitting at the table and here is the big list. The fact they were not consulted is the argument. This is on the list. However, they used to branch out every now and then and they would go in to speak about things that mattered to private business and things that mattered to public business. Mr. Chair, these are the representatives on the main committee and this is on the list coming down.

There are seven jurisdictions in the country that mirror private sector and public sector. If you are bringing it in for one there is a pretty good chance you are bringing it in for the other. There are seven jurisdictions. If you are sitting at that table, you are looking at this big, long list, and you see that on the list – and there are seven other jurisdictions in Canada that do it, and all this is possibilities. Mr. Chair, you do not have to be too outside the box to connect the dots. If that is one of the items the government regulator decides to bring forward that will be one of the items.

Mr. Chair, the whole time I am here all I can think about is the quote of a former member of this House. He used to say all the time: it is not rocket surgery. If you were looking at this list, Mr. Chair, all I can think about is the quote of that member who said it is not rocket surgery. Mr. Chair, we all know what he meant.

The consultation, fair enough – I will say to the NAPE leadership in particular that no, it may not have been discussed at that sidebar on the ERC. However, it was on the list – the lengthy list, I might add – and part of our job was finding that balance. You could have cherry-picked either one. Obviously, all the labour movement would have cherry-picked all the business ones and said: they are garbage. Most of the business people would have picked the labour initiatives and said: we do not want them; we have no time for them.

They had four they had consensus on – only four – so government decided to bring our legislation up to the twenty-first century, Mr. Chair, and to bring in some initiatives that we thought, as I have been using, to put in our toolbox, to enable strikes not to happen, and labour unrest.

So, Mr. Chair, I wanted to talk about that consultation piece. The other thing I want to talk about is the timing piece. This is important. This timing piece – that one really amazes me. As the Premier sometimes says she is struck amazed. Well, I am struck amazed by this one because we talk about timing – now I like to think I am pretty keen. Like all of us in the House, we like to think we are pretty keen and sharp and we can get along and we can manage to make a scattered plan when we have to. Mr. Chair, as anyone – all the people who this affects by the way who are out there in the bureaucracy, who I want to speak to personally one-on-one in a minute, all of them out there can tell you that this is something that went through two Premiers, four different Cabinet ministers responsible for labour, an industrial inquiry, an Employment Relations Committee, a review of our Special Project Orders – and I was the one in 2009 who was keen enough to bring all of this together and knowing that the House was going to be open late into June, to make all of this happen this week so that the timing was just right to go into negotiations. Now, Mr. Chair, that, in itself, would be – and anybody who works in this bureaucracy knows the wheels of government sometimes and how it turns, Mr. Chair, can only imagine the likelihood of that happening.

Mr. Chair, on to that, now when this is passed there will be months go by before this actually comes into action because now there will be a cross-jurisdictional analysis happen as to how they actually vote, as to how the wheels will be put into motion. Besides that, I have never ever been mentioned, not once, not by the Premier, not by a Cabinet minister, not by anyone, not a backbencher, not one solitary person has ever mentioned to me: Minister, you better get this in shape for the upcoming negotiations – not once. It has never even been brought to my attention, I say, never once.

On top of that the Premier said to me yesterday: Minister, I do not know what this is all about. I have absolutely no intention of using that for this round of negotiations – absolutely not. That would not be fair; that is just not right. We are in the process of bringing that in now. I said: Yes, Premier, and it is months away anyway. I do not know what else to say.

Before I sit down, I have one more point I want to make. I have talked to quite a few people; I have talked to a number of people who work around the confines of Confederation Building and in Confederation Building. This is about giving them the right to vote on an offer. They can throw it in the garbage. They can say: No, we do not want it. They do not have to take this vote. This is about giving them the right to vote. The ultimate in democracy is giving them the right to vote. This is the employer saying: Here it is. Would you like it or would you not? It is a one-shot deal; it is one option.

Mr. Chair, I am not sure. To me, this is more about the leadership than it is about the people, the average person working around Confederation Building and working in the public service. This is not about dictating to somebody that they have to take a contract, Mr. Chair. This is about giving them the offer and asking them to vote on it. I find it very hard to take that and say there is something wrong. The people who are out there complaining about this, they have not said one word about the certification. They are also out there in the private sector – they have members in the private sector and they are out using certification, so they love that part.

Mr. Chair, that is why the balance is so important. That is why we cannot be seen as unfriendly to business and unfriendly to labour. That is why it was so important for us to strike that balance. When we see the membership of one union out knocking us for having something like vote on offer, then they also should reference the fact of how much they appreciate the certification measure. That is what we have been doing. As the regulator, our role is to strike that balance and, Mr. Chair, I believe we have achieved that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am just going to stand here for a few minutes to speak on this bill. Mr. Chair, I am against this bill; I will say it upfront. I am against it because once again we see a way to circumvent the leadership negotiating team of the union. Fundamentally, I feel that is wrong. Just then I spoke against something that was going in for the employers and this is something against the union.

I heard the minister say that we are bringing in this legislation and we have no intents of using it this time, we have no intents of using it, we are bringing it in. I tell the minister a few times, Mr. Chair, in my days you get into a bit of a tussle. When you see someone with a piece of board, he does not have to tell you what he is going to do with the board but you know it is there. The hammer is always there. There is no intention maybe not to use it, but you know it is there. When you talk about your tool box, I think this is one of the hammers that are brought to the table.

Mr. Chair, you say that it is not going to be used for this negotiation, but there is no commitment. We are saying well, it may be in place, we have to go and have some more investigations and have some more ideas of it. Even if you go past this set of negotiations, we are looking at it down the road and we try to set legislation for the future. I ask the minister this question, Mr. Chair. When I seen the bill it crossed my mind, because I did a bit of study on the Labour Relations Board, unions and businesses. I will ask the minister this question. If a company was involved with a set of negotiations and they brought in a piece of legislation like this, how long would you think it would be before the board to say it is an unfair labour practice? It would be done pretty quickly.

I am willing to bet, Mr. Chair, that if any company in this Province brought in something like this while they are in negotiations, like the government are doing with NAPE now, brought in anything like this, there would be an unfair labour practice filed ASAP. I am willing to bet anybody in this House, that the Labour Relations Board would say yes, it is an unfair labour practice to bring something like this in while there are negotiations ongoing. I am willing to bet. I think all members opposite would have to agree with that.

When you ask about the timing, I am definitely not challenging the minister's motives. I am definitely not doing that. I am definitely not saying that there was any great conspiracy to bring it in at this time. The minister says it is not, I take the minister at his word. I can assure you that this would not pass the Labour Relations Board if there are unfair labour practices, if there is some way that anybody could bring that in, in negotiations outside in the public sector. I am willing to bet, Mr. Chair. That is one of the concerns that I have about it, Mr. Chair.

Why it is brought in - in my opinion, and I am repeating myself and I do not mind doing it because I think it is an important issue for the union. Why is it brought in if it is not to circumvent the union and negotiating team? What would be the purpose? Can anybody tell me what the purpose would be? If the people in this Province elected the members in this House and we found out that a minister was going beyond the member and dealing with a council in your own district, how upset would we be? How upset would you be, Mr. Chair, if you knew a minister was out dealing with a council behind your back? You knew, no matter what you sit down and agree with, and no matter what you would sit down with the council, there is a minister behind you saying: We are going to bring this to the council. How would you feel? In my opinion, that is what is happening here.

Mr. Chair, I just want to pass that on. Those are my concerns on the bill. I just want to make it known that I am not in favour of this.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Deputy House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee rise, report progress on this bill, and ask leave to sit again.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that we have passed Bill 33, we have passed 37 with an amendment, and we are reporting progress on Bill 38.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of Committee of Supply reports that the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have carried Bill 33 without amendment, Bill 37 with amendment, and have made progress in their considerations on Bill 38, and have asked leave to sit again.

When shall the report be received?

On tomorrow.

When shall the bills be read a third time, the ones we have passed without amendment?

MR. KING: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

Bills ordered read a third time presently, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: We are going to deal with the amendments to Bill 37. The amendments need to be read a first time.

CLERK: First reading of the amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the amendments be now read a first time.

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'.

Motion carried.

The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I move that the amendments be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the amendments be now read a second time.

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'.

Motion carried.

CLERK: Second reading of the amendments.

MR. KING: We have three views here, Mr. Speaker. We are going in all directions. I apologize.

I call Order 8 from the paper, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Assessment Act, 2006, Bill 34.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I move, seconded by the Minister of Education, that Bill 34, An Act To Amend The Assessment Act, 2006, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 34 entitled, An Act To Amend The Assessment Act, 2006, be read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Assessment Act, 2006". (Bill 34)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Assessment Act, 2006, governs property assessments that are undertaken by the City of St. John's and the Municipal Assessment Agency. Property assessments are conducted using one of two methods: fair market value or reproduction costs. The amendments deal with the reproduction costs in regard to that assessment process.

The reproduction cost method is used for special purpose properties. To give you an example of a special purpose property in the City of St. John's, you would identify them as the storage tanks that are on the opposite side of the harbour that is across the other side from the Delta, say for instance. That would be identified as a special property.

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the special property, in regard to the assessment process, there is no real way to have market data available to determine the market value of the property for the assessment purposes. There is really no way of evaluating that. Under the amendments to the Assessment Act, 2006, it will provide a clearer, more consistent application of the property assessments for special purpose properties throughout the Province.

Prior to 2007, all property assessments were completed using the fair market value and the changes in that act of 2006 actually introduced the reproduction cost method. Previous changes to the Assessment Act in 2006 certainly acknowledged the fact that there are properties for which fair market value may not be the most appropriate means of assessment.

While these previous changes were made and it was clear how special purpose properties were to be valued, the broad definition was vague in which properties are designated. These amendments address this issue.

Current changes to the act will result in the creation of a definitive list of property types or properties. This list will be developed on consultation with the city and the municipal assessment agency. The list will create uniformity across the Province in the assessment of the unique properties and would ensure that property types listed may be changed in the future, if necessary, with the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. They will be enshrined in the regulations. They will have to come forward to the minister and the Lieutentant-Governor in Council

Mr. Speaker, there have been recent court challenges as well in which the appellants were assessed by a city assessor of special purpose properties, but both argued that the designation was discriminatory because the city failed to similarly assess other properties which also met the statutory definition. As a result of that, the ruling in regard to that court challenge, they directed Municipal Affairs to bring some clarity to the act, and certainly that is what these amendments do; these amendments will further clarify for the assessors as to which properties are to be assessed using the reproduction cost methodology, Mr. Speaker.

The changes to the legislation will certainly help to protect the current municipal taxation base in order to ensure strong, sustainable communities throughout the Province, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

I will take my seat in the House and welcome any comments from my hon. colleagues across the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just stand for a few minutes to speak on Bill 34, Mr. Speaker.

Once again, I thank the minister and his staff for the briefing on it that we had. It is some kind of a minor bill in size, but it may have some implications, and I understand that from the minister. I just want to pass that on to the staff, to thank them for that.

Mr. Speaker, from my understanding of the bill, it is brought in because when it was challenged in the court, the court actually asked for some clarification on this to properly define what is a special purpose property, and this act clarifies it. I understand from the minister that there are some organizations, some businesses that may be against it, but for my understanding of it, Mr. Speaker, this is for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I know it is a bill that is all for Newfoundland and Labrador, so it is not just for one specific business, just for anything around. These regulations will ensure that it is a fair market value and it is going to be set out in the regulations what is defined, to ensure that the municipalities and a lot of the municipalities around the Province, Mr. Speaker, will have their tax base and will have leverage to put in a proper tax system. If there is anything that I would suggest to the minister, is to meet with groups who have some concerns and see – and I know, Mr. Speaker, that there are some groups, I already said, are going to meet with some municipalities around the Province to try and iron out some of the differences.

I just wanted to thank the minister again for giving a briefing. This legislation, there will be some organizations that are going to be upset over this legislation. I am not sure how the municipalities can deal with that or work it out, but with the minister putting it in through the regulations, if there is some way to work out an agreement before the regulations are brought in so to have a – the minister said that they would try to have it worked out before the regulations are brought in, which will be great for some of the organizations which feel that there is a way that they can sit down and negotiate with the municipalities and not have the regulations involved with them, Mr Speaker. I encourage the minister to do that so we do not need the arm of the government.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise to talk to this one for a few minutes and I guess a little bit of levity never hurts at the same time. If you want to throw your BlackBerry over this way, by the way, Mr. Minister, we would be pleased to have it. It is as good as having a notebook in some cases.

I have to say, first off, congratulations to your staff for giving us a fine briefing on this one. In particular Chad Blundon; he is a real asset to the department, and I would just like to say thanks for the clarity in the briefing that he gave to us.

As regards to this amendment, we are quite supportive of this measure as it is going to ensure stability amongst all municipalities when it comes to the designation of special purpose properties. It just brings a little bit of clarity, and we know now that there is going to be some sort of stability as regards the funding measures that are going to be taken upon the municipalities, and they know for sure exactly what they are going to be able to charge when it comes to special purpose properties. So, it takes out a little bit of volatility, and I guess in some cases it is going to take out a little bit of debate, actually, in what would be considered a special purpose property. We know that the Department of Municipal Affairs would be putting in some hard work into generating that list with municipalities.

The only other note that I can see, as regards to talking about this, is that we have talked an awful lot about the funding arrangements, and this is probably the foundation of the whole question of municipal funding. So, again, congratulations to the staff, and I do not see any problems regarding this. We are totally in support of the City of St. John's when it comes to this particular measure, as we are for all municipalities when it comes to seeing that stable form of funding.

So, again, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs speaks now, he will close debate.

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

Certainly, I welcome the comments of my hon. colleagues across the House, and I certainly welcome and thank you for the comments on the staff, the great staff – Chad Blundon, and all the other people who I have working in the department who work tirelessly for municipalities all across Newfoundland and Labrador. This is a good piece of work done. It is a needed piece of work that brings clarity to the act itself, and yes, I would have to also mention that as we develop the list there is going to be a lot of work into that. There are going to be certain categories within the list itself, and then there is going to be the total list. So, assessments will be made on those, and we will work with all the groups out there to make sure that is all in place, and all in place in the right way before the regulations are actually brought down.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the time in the House today on second reading of Bill 34.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the bill 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 Assessment Act, 2006. (Bill 34)

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

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

MR. KING: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Assessment Act, 2006", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 34)

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Fatalities Investigations Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the bill be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 33 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Fatalities Investigations Act. (Bill 33)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fatalities Investigations Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 33)

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.

It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 37 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act. (Bill 37)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 37)

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

This House now stands adjourned until Tuesday, Monday being a holiday in this Province.

The House now stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday.

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