June

17, 2010 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 40

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the Chair would like to welcome twenty-four Grade 5 students from

Twillingate Island Elementary from the District of the Isles of Notre Dame. The

students are accompanied by Principal David Dove; teachers, Dawn Troake, Patti

Hicks-Brown, Jody Cooper; student assistance, Patsy Jenkins; as well as their

bus driver, Colin Pardy.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would also like to welcome thirty-three Grade 6

students from Helen Tulk Elementary from the District of Exploits. The students

are accompanied by their principal, David Alcock; teachers, Danika Hynes, Cathy

Rowe, Steve White; and their French monitor, Valerie Castonguay-Boisvert.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would also like to recognize a Mr. John

McKinlay-Key, National Director of Operations for the Motorcycle Ride for Dad

organization, promoting prostate cancer awareness across Newfoundland and

Labrador, and actually right across Canada. I understand that ride is taking

place this weekend.

Welcome, Sir, to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today, the following members' statements will be heard: the

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

District of Exploits; the hon. Member for the District of Port au Port; and the

hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand in this hon. House today to congratulate Julie

Huntington on receiving the 2010 Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Award

in the individual category.

Mr. Speaker, the award recognizes outstanding efforts and contributions to

sustaining, protecting and enhancing the Province's environment, something that

Julie Huntington takes very seriously.

Julie is currently executive director of the Atlantic Coastal Action Program,

and a board member of the Natural History Society of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Julie helped launch the Newfoundland

chapter of the Canadian Parks and

Wilderness Society, and together with her husband, works with the Whale Release

and Strandings Group.

Mr. Speaker, Julie's commitment to the environment extends beyond her daily

vocation. As one of her nominators wrote, Julie grows much of her own food,

raises three teenagers to be aware and responsible citizens, and values

simplicity over material consumerism. She is an educator, mentor, advocate,

cheerleader and tireless organizer.

Mr. Speaker, Julie Huntington embodies an attitude of sustainability that

should serve as a model for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians so that we are

partners with our environment and not just environmental consumers. Julie's

passion and initiative to improve the world in which we live, by setting an

example, is a lesson we can all learn, Mr. Speaker.

I ask all hon. members of this House of Assembly to join me in congratulating

Newfoundland and Labrador's Environmentalist of the Year, Julie Huntington.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today to recognize a long-time volunteer, Mr. Ron

Penney, of Bishop's Falls on being awarded Knight of the Year at the Knights of

Columbus State convention held in Gander in May.

Mr. Speaker, Ron is a dedicated family man and a long-time member of the

Knights of Columbus Monsignor Finn Council 5904. Ron is presently serving as

Grand Knight and is very active in the church.

Mr. Speaker, Ron organizes the Knights of Columbus annual turkey dinner and

raffle, leads the Keep Christ in Christmas march, and was instrumental in the

restoration of the Sacred Heart Parish cemetery.

Mr. Speaker, Ron will be the first to admit that his countless hours of

volunteering could not be possible without the support of his wife, Marjorie. As

a matter of fact, both Ron and Marjorie are devoted to their church and

community.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating an

outstanding individual, Ron Penney, on being awarded Knight of the Year for

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Mr.Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to congratulate

Rosemary Ryan of Kippens for receiving the Recreation Newfoundland and

Labrador's Pitcher Plant Award on June 12 in recognition for her many years of

volunteer work.

Mr. Speaker, during the past twenty-four years Rosemary has given many hours

of her time promoting physical activities for youth. Rosemary's commitment and

dedication to the well-being and development of children is more than evident.

She coaches an average of ten teams annually in such sports as volleyball,

basketball, cross-country skiing, badminton, and track and field. She has been

involved in the development of the Special Olympics in Stephenville, conducted

badge work for Girl Guides, and has been a leader with the Duke of Edinburgh

program, worked with senior groups, volunteered with the Kippens Winter Carnival

and Canada Day Celebrations, and has organized and supervised the Kippens Summer

Recreation program for children up to twelve years of age.

Rosemary has enriched the lives of many children over the years and I am

proud that her dedication has been recognized with the Recreation Newfoundland

and Labrador Pitcher Plant Award.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of the hon. House of Assembly to join

with me in congratulating Rosemary Ryan on receiving the Pitcher Plant Award

this year and to thank her for her contribution and commitment to our youth.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the

success of the breakfast program at Lewisporte Academy.

Lewisporte Academy is a school with a population of 352 students and

thirty-three staff. The school, located in Lewisporte, serves students from

Laurenceton, Brown's Arm, Stanhope, Porterville, Little Burnt Bay and Embree.

Three days each week, students are given the opportunity to avail of a

healthy snack for their breakfast once they arrive at school. A wide variety of

foods, carefully selected from the four food groups on the Canada Food Guide,

are served. This includes a good selection of fresh fruit, milk, whole grain

toast, and yogurt.

Staff members at the school say that the faces of the children light up as

they eagerly access the food items each morning. They also say it is a pleasure

to see the children excitedly interact with the many breakfast program

volunteers. This is a very worthwhile program that helps prepare students for a

day of learning.

Members of the House of Assembly, please join me in recognition of all the

volunteers that make the breakfast program at Lewisporte Academy a resounding

success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Minister Responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, I rise in

this hon. House today, to advise members and the public of very positive news in

the area of social housing. I have the pleasure of announcing today a new and

progressive pilot project to better meet the increased demand for smaller social

housing units, a trend we are seeing throughout the Province.

This pilot project has been made possible through a $1 million research and

development investment by the provincial government to assess and identify

potential solutions for social housing needs.

At present, 86 per cent of applicants for housing are in need of one and

two-bedroom homes. However, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing's portfolio,

originally designed to meet the demographic needs of the 1960s and the 1970s,

consists primarily of three, four and five-bedroom units. This current reality

is that our homes are no longer suitable for the majority of the applicants on

our waiting list.

Pine Martin Adventures Inc. of Corner Brook has been awarded a $300,000

contract to reconfigure two three-bedroom units on Wheeler's Road into three

smaller homes this summer. The reconfiguration will include one fully-accessible

two-bedroom apartment on the main floor and two one-bedroom apartments on the

upper level. A second reconfiguration project in St. John's is expected to be

awarded later this summer.

Mr. Speaker, the focus of reconfiguration is to be able to use existing

housing more effectively to address changing demographic needs. We see this

pilot project as an opportunity to evaluate the future economic feasibility of

such projects. Such projects also move our social housing portfolio into

position to meet the needs of future generations. I cannot express how thankful

we are that the Cities of Corner Brook and St. John's are supporting

reconfiguration as they too plan for the future housing needs of their citizens.

This reconfiguration work is also in keeping with the goals of the provincial

government's Social Housing Plan for Newfoundland and Labrador - Secure

Foundations, which outlines a new long-term vision for social housing aimed at

improving the housing circumstances of lower-income households and helping to

create healthier communities.

Mr. Speaker, as this project indicates, our government is very open to

exploring new options that will further assist us in addressing the need for

social housing throughout our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement, and to

say yes, we agree that this is a tremendous announcement. To know that there is

going to be an initiative now as families throughout our Province require

smaller-sized units as compared in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I guess each and every area of the Province, there is no

exception to this. It is good to see that this initiative is going to start in

Corner Brook and another one coming up in St. John's. I know in our area that we

represent, we probably do not have the housing units, the apartment units like

they have in those cities but even in those areas, a single unit, most of them

are three and four bedroom, and the same need is there, Mr. Speaker. I know

since April 2009 to April 2010, the vacancy rate has fallen from 2.1 per cent to

1.1 per cent in the Province and the availability rate over the same time has

declined from 2.7 per cent to 1.7 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, we know the tremendous turnover in our Province today and the

rising cost. So people are staying in those units. It is not as big a turnover

as there used to be, Mr. Speaker. This past year 1,100 applicants were in the

pool and I think 840 were accepted. It was only recently we saw an

article in

the paper, where a gentleman is living in a van. I think Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing confirmed that he is on a wait-list with 370 people.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is good news. Hopefully, more can be done. This is a

great start, but, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that there is more that has to be

done and sooner rather than later.

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

Vidi.

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy his statement.

I am very happy to see this initiative being started in Corner Brook. I do

believe that some of the work that was done around the Froude Avenue

reconfigurations involved a similar type of work with regard to the large

bedroom houses and resulting in some extra accessible units because of the

reconfiguration to the Froude Avenue buildings here in St. John's.

I guess I see this as a direction in which Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

has already decided to move more than a pilot project, but I am glad to see it

is happening outside of St. John's and not just in St. John's, especially in

Corner Brook where they have a 0.4 per cent vacancy rate in rental units.

As I have said to the minister, and he knows, we have a major problem with

regard to housing. On the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing list, for example,

we have 1,000 people now on the waiting list. We have quite a bit to do. This is

a good initiative, but it is one of much more that needs to be done around

housing.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize an exceptional

individual and an amazing spokesperson and advocate for the Canadian Sealing

Industry Skipper Mark Small.

On June 12, 2010, I was pleased to present Mark with an Award of Recognition

on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for his leadership and

commitment to the Canadian Sealing Industry for over thirty years.

Mark was also recently honoured with the Fur Institute of Canada's Bernard

Cahill Memorial Award, recognizing his significant contributions in promoting

respect for people, animals and the environment at the community level and with

a global perspective.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador continues to be a strong

supporter of the Province's sealing industry. We have dedicated $500,000 in the

last five provincial Budgets to communications and advocacy work. This work is

in support of this sustainable, humane and economically important industry. Mark

has been a partner with us in this work.

As a resident of Wild Cove, Mark was one of the founders of the Canadian

Sealers Association, or the CSA. He was president of this organization for over

fifteen years. Under his leadership, the association played a major role in

revitalizing the industry to one of the most successful stories in the

Newfoundland and Labrador fishing industry. Mark is a true pioneer of the

sealing industry and speaks with conviction on the importance of this renewable

and sustainable natural resource.

Mark is currently active in representing sealers on the Fur Institute of

Canada's Seals and Sealing Committee. He is president of the Northeast Coast

Sealer's Co-operative and he remains an active professional fish harvester, Mr.

Speaker, and I believe at the age of seventy. Mark is highly respected leader

and his relentless dedication and passion to the sealing industry is

unparalleled.

Mark has travelled to many countries as a sealing expert and an advocate for

the sealing industry. His passion and his vision for the industry are well

respected. We look forward to receiving his advice and guidance on important

sealing issues for many years to come.

Our government will continue to work with the sealing industry in this

Province, across the country and throughout the world in addressing the

promotion and development of this industry that is so important to rural

Newfoundland and Labrador. We look forward to working with Mark and his

colleagues into the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

It is an absolute privilege, Mr. Speaker, to stand in the House of Assembly

today and to recognize the work of Mark Small. Mark Small has been a strong

advocate of the fishing industry, but most importantly of the sealing industry

in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Over the many decades, Mr. Speaker, as a sealer, of going to the front in

this Province and pioneering an industry in the seal hunt for Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians, he did so always with conservation in mind and with the best

humane practices of the day. It certainly speaks volumes of this particular

gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate him, and join with the minister in doing

so, on receiving the Award of Recognition in Newfoundland and Labrador and also

on the award that was granted to him by the Fur Institute of Canada, the Bernard

Cahill Memorial Award. It certainly speaks volumes to the fact that Mark Small's

work has not been in vain in Newfoundland and Labrador and has been recognized

across Canada and around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I wish him every success and great strength in carrying forward

the messages of the sealing industry and the fishing industry in Newfoundland

and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the minister announced recently a study on grey seals and

whether they eat cod or not. I bet you Mr. Mark Small could probably tell you

today, Minister, that grey seals eat cod. I am sure he has been around the

industry long enough that his advice and his contribution on that particular

research will be very helpful to the department and, hopefully, in helping us in

being able to curb the populations of seals that we have out there in

Newfoundland and Labrador, help us to continue to promote it as a humane

industry in this Province, and to build viable markets for the tremendous

product that we can derive from the sealing industry.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

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

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

I, too, join in congratulating Captain Mark Small and his efforts in

promoting the sealing industry, both as a harvester and as an advocate. It is

certainly because of people like Captain Small, and particularly because of him,

that we have the industry that we still have today. It is an industry that has

struggled because of the negative media campaigns. It has had poor markets. The

misinformation that has been put out there about the industry and put out for

decades by high-profile people has not helped, but somebody like Mark Small has

continued advocating and working in the industry and fighting for the industry

and the right for harvesters to be in that industry.

So it is wonderful that his efforts have been formally recognized, Mr.

Speaker. It is remarkable that the industry is still doing so well, and it will

continue to do so as long as people like Mark Small and other harvesters who are

out there working in this industry continue to do their work, and with the help

and the support of government and all of us here in this House of Assembly.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last year, our office carried out a survey of municipalities

around the Province on a number of issues. One of those issues was the

Provincial Waste Management Strategy. A majority of the respondents stated that

they were not satisfied with government's plan and that they were concerned with

the cost that was associated with it. A year later, many of these concerns are

still being expressed.

I ask the minister: What process does the government have in place to address

the serious concerns that are being raised by municipalities, especially on

issues around increased cost?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her question.

We have in place fifteen regional committees and subcommittees that are

working together right now. We have spent up to this date $62 million in

implementing that strategy. As the previous Administration had brought in that

strategy with no funding or no plans to implement that, we have also budgeted

$26 million. With regard to the cost, we are working through that. The

committees are looking at options with regard to the cost. So, in fact, all

across the Province I am actually meeting tomorrow morning with the Eastern

Waste Management Committee.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly thank the minister for

her response.

Mr. Speaker, many of the municipalities do support the intentions of the

waste management program. However, there are concerns with regard to the level

of taxation that will have to be imposed in order to be able to carry it out.

One of those groups that have recently been expressing concerns is the Exploits

Joint Council.

I ask the minister: If government has considered providing any assistance to

these municipalities who do not have the ability to pay in implementing the

program, or will they automatically have to download the expenses on to the

residents of those communities?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the concerns people are

raising about what it is going to cost to discard our waste. Right now, we

looked at, in some cases it is less than $200 a year. In some cases it is the

price of a cup of coffee. I think it is a new way of distributing our waste and

getting rid of our waste. It is going to take an education for people to

understand what we are trying to do here as a Province. We are far behind the

times when it comes to getting rid of our waste. It is not acceptable any more.

We need to protect our environment. We cannot be taking our waste and throwing

it out into the barrens in rural Newfoundland. Just look at Robin Hood Bay, what

has happened down there. We have put a tremendous amount of money in Robin Hood

Bay and it is a first-class facility. Out in Norris Arm, they also have a

facility.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are indeed concerned about the cost. We are going to

explore all options and make it as sustainable as we can for our communities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, last year the federal government announced that it

would be requiring municipalities across Canada to treat their waste water.

These regulations have since been publicized and it has caused a great deal of

concern for municipalities in the Province, as the implementation of the

proposed regulations will hit smaller rural and urban communities especially

hard, both financially and in their capacity to deliver on the necessary

infrastructure.

I ask the Minister of the Environment: How is it that government is preparing

to assist these municipalities sector with the implementation of the new water

waste regulations being put forward by the federal government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her question. It is a very good

question and it has very valid points. It is the exact reason, Mr. Speaker, why

I did not, and why this Province did not sign on to the strategy back in

Whitehorse in 2009, Mr. Speaker, because of the cost that it would incur to the

municipalities in this Province. We have over 700 outfalls in the Province, Mr.

Speaker, and we expect that this will cost the Province anywhere upwards of $2.9

billion over thirty years. So at that CCME meeting I put forward to the Minister

of Environment federally, that unless there was something in there to assist

provinces with the cost, we were not going to sign, we did not sign. Now we see

other provinces who did sign and we see all the uproar that is being caused

there.

Mr. Speaker, it is one that we are working on but we did not sign it for

those very reasons, and it is a valid question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my understanding that just because the Province has not signed on as a

government it does not mean that our residents are going to be exempt from this

policy. What I am understanding from the Federation of Municipalities, Mr.

Speaker, is that they will have to comply with these federal regulations, and in

doing so, Mr. Speaker, it will cost approximately $67 million per year just to

dedicate to the capital project. This is money that they do not have in funding

arrangements and they feel that there is an inability to be able to raise that

money as taxes in many of their municipalities.

So I ask the minister: Whether we sign on as a Province or whether we do not,

how do we relieve the financial stress and pressures that are going to be

encountered by these municipalities who are forced to comply with federal

regulations?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, very valid questions. I just got back from Fredericton, New Brunswick,

where we met with the Atlantic ministers, and this is one of the items that were

on the agenda. We agreed, as Atlantic ministers, to write the federal minister

in terms of the cost and to ask for assistance to provide municipalities

throughout Canada with assistance for this cost, Mr. Speaker.

There was also an opportunity to comment to the federal minister by May 19 of

this year, and I know the Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador wrote. I also

provided a nine page letter to the federal minister, which I would be more than

happy to share with the member opposite, outlining all of our concerns, but

again, on numerous occasions I have raised this with the federal minister how

cost is very important and we are looking for assistance from the federal

government.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would appreciate the minister

giving me a copy of that presentation.

Mr. Speaker, municipalities are already overburdened with a great many

services, waste management being one and waste water treatment programs that

will cripple them as well. The government committed to a new fiscal arrangement

with municipalities now for a number of years but so far they fail to deliver on

this arrangement.

I ask the minister: Given the enhanced fiscal ability of the government, when

can municipalities expect to have a finalized fiscal sharing arrangement to

address some of these concerns?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, we are working closely with the Federation of

Municipalities for new fiscal framework for the municipalities. We have

contributed to all of the municipalities millions of dollars; we work with

municipalities in projects that they put forward. There is a ninety-ten that we

brought in the ratios.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to trying to complete a piece of

work that is involved with the fiscal framework that I will be putting forward

to our government to look at to help municipalities with their downloading, as

you put it, Opposition Leader.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The Premier commissioned Mr. Bill Marshall to complete a review of the Inland

Fish and Wildlife Program in 2005. A draft copy of the report was submitted to

the Premier in 2006 with a final report said to be imminent. However, various

ministers have stated in this House over the past two years that the report has

not been completed yet.

I ask the Premier: We have been waiting four years now for this report to be

released; where is it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, we do not have Mr. Marshall's final report

as of yet, but having said that, the Inland Fish Program is working exceedingly

well. It is not broke, so there is no need to fix it at this point in time. The

results from inland fish have been very good and we are quite pleased with the

efforts that they are making.

When Mr. Marshall was solicited to do this report, Mr. Speaker, there were

some human resource problems with that program, but they have since been worked

out and the program is functioning very well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

We have spoken with employees of the Inland Fish and Wildlife Program who

were promised this report some four years ago. We received portions of a 100

page preliminary report that Mr. Marshall submitted under the Access to

Information request that we filed some four years ago. Of course, most of that

was blacked out as well, which is standard government policy, it seems.

I ask the minister: When do you expect to receive the report and finally be

in a position to release it to the public? It is just not good enough to say we

asked him and he has not complied. Is he doing the job or not doing the job and

when do you expect to hear from him?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the policy that the hon. member referred to

is the ATIPP policy and one that this government abides by. So the hon. member

should understand that.

Mr. Speaker, when we get Justice Marshall's report and recommendations, and

we will look forward to receiving them, if they can be implemented and can

improve the system, we will certainly consider that. As for now, Mr. Speaker,

the system is working very well, and when we get Judge Marshall's report, we

will consider it then.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, it is important for the people of the

Province that they see Mr. Marshall's final report. In his preliminary findings

he stated, and I quote, that he had a "troubling image of an area of the public

service with the potential of imploding on itself."

I ask the minister: With such strong statements being made, why are you still

sitting back, doing nothing, and continue to do nothing after four years? Is

this just another case, Mr. Speaker, that you did not like the findings and

recommendations that were made in the preliminary report and you have therefore

buried it within government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, Justice Marshall did make some preliminary recommendations,

which this government considered, and in fact, the system did not implode. As a

matter of fact, quite the reverse happened. If it had imploded, Mr. Speaker,

then we would have, I think, different results. The results we are getting today

shows that the system is working very well, and there is no sign anywhere, in my

estimation, of any implosion in that service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Well maybe the minister should read the report, because I quoted exactly from

the piece that we did manage to siphon out of the government under the freedom

of access to information.

Mr. Speaker, you can get a university degree in four years. Mr. Marshall was

also contracted four years ago to conduct a review of the Crown Prosecutor's

office, as a result of a recommendation of the Lamer Inquiry - four years ago.

I ask the minister: Has this report on the Crown Prosecutor's Office been

completed and submitted to the government, and if not, why do you feel it is

acceptable to have two very important reports, of such importance to this

Province in fact, being delayed for four years by the same person?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, in the interim, this government has also

commissioned another report on prosecutions, which made some sweeping

recommendations and changes to the prosecutorial service, which has served this

Province very well.

Again, we have not received Justice Marshall's report. If he can add anything

in his recommendations to what we have, we will certainly consider it when we

get it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, the Stephenville Theatre Festival begins on June

30. This is one of the largest and most anticipated events of the year for this

community and those in the surrounding area. The festival relies on their signs

to attract tourists. Therefore, they purchased and installed new signs to

promote this event. However, government recently removed their brand new signs

without notice.

I ask the minister: Why were these signs removed and what is the rationale

behind taking down signs during tourist season when we know that the TODS

program will not be fully implemented for years down the road?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the TODS system, one of the

most recognized and most effective signage programs in the world, I say that the

hon. member must know something that I do not know in that it is going to take

years and years to implement it. We are in the process of implementing that and

certainly we have done a lot of work to the TODS system.

In regard to your question to the Stephenville festival, I gave an interview

on Radio Noon today. We are there to work with those particular groups around

the Province and certainly we see the need in regard to promoting their

festivals as a tourist destination. It is important to the region. In turn, I

have to say that the proper permitting was not in place in regard to those signs

and that is the reason why they were taken down last fall.

As well, I have an official in the area at this very moment meeting with the

festival committee, to work with them, get the proper permits in place and the

applications in place. Certainly, we will work with them in regard to any cost

(inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, in two recent newspaper articles relating to the

TODS program there was a notable discrepancy coming from the Department of

Government Services. On the one hand the department is saying they are not at

this point of removing signs, yet on the other hand, the minister has explained

that sign removal has been taking place in preparation for the implementation of

the TODS program.

I ask the minister: Can you explain to us today why your department is

claiming that signs have not been taken down when clearly they are?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, back about June last year, in 2009, we

implemented a process, we gave proper notice in regard to removal of illegal

signs, or signs that just do not have any permits in place. We started that

process in probably about August or September of last year. The signs in

question that the hon. member mentioned in his past question were removed last

fall. Any signage that has been removed any time after that date is being in an

illegal category and we will continue that process.

We are not absolutely 100 per cent in everything we do. We have missed

certain signs that are not meeting the regulations surrounding the TODS system,

the current regulations that are in place for that signage policy, but we are

continuing the process in regard encouraging each and every one of those

organizations to enter into the TODS system.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: With all due respect to the minister, Mr. Speaker, legal

signs have been removed in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, after a recent meeting with the municipalities in the Bay St.

George area, the Minister of Government Services stated that he will take into

consideration the concerns that have been brought forward to him regarding the

new TODS program.

I ask the minister: If you are willing to address these concerns, why are you

still removing signs before those issues can be rectified?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member listens very

well, because I have already indicated that the only signs that are being

removed with regard to our provincial highways and our Trans-Canada Highway are

signs that have not been permitted in the correct manner or are illegal. Those

are the ones that have been removed.

Also, as well, if we have removed any signs that are in the legal category

and properly permitted, we have worked with the organizations in question - as a

matter of fact, a couple in regard to the West Coast - and we have redeveloped

those signs to the proper way that they had them developed and they have been

placed. We will work with each and every one. If we have removed any signs that

are legal and have been properly permitted, we will work with those particular

people in regard to redeveloping

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, in one minute the minister is saying we have not

removed any legal signs but now he is saying if we have, we will probably deal

with those people.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the minister many times that they are not

removing legal signs. However, there is obvious confusion in the industry as to

what is expected of them when putting up their business signs and signs are

still coming down. As I stated earlier, the minister met with the people on the

West Coast and he stated that he would consider the concerns in that area during

the development of the new policy and regulations for the TODS program.

I ask the minister: When will the new policies and regulations be in place

that will give clear direction to the business operators?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, we are currently in - the hon. member is getting

confused, because there is currently a signage policy in this Province. In order

to put up a sign you have to apply for a permit and put up a sign. If you are

the place that is designated. However, Mr. Speaker, this has nothing to do with

the TODS system whatsoever.

The TODS system is a new program that we are developing. We are currently in

the early stages of development. We are consulting with municipalities

throughout the Province, Mr. Speaker. We are consulting with Hospitality

Newfoundland and Labrador and, Mr. Speaker, somewhere down within the next

twenty-four months, Mr Speaker, we will have a provincial signage policy called

TODS.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Eastern School Board put forward their preference for the new west end

high school last night which has been submitted to the Minister of Education for

approval. Parents appear to be happy with the choice of a vacant piece of land

next to the School for the Deaf.

I ask the minister: Are you prepared to accept that recommendation from the

school board?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the member opposite for her question. To get right to the point, I

have not received that request from the school board yet. I have only heard the

reports through the media. The minister is well aware of the process, that the

board will send in any number of sites for consideration by me, as the Minister

of Education, and I will do the same with that recommendation, as I do with all

others, will give it due consideration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can the minister confirm for me, what time frame is government working with

for construction of this facility and when the school would be expected to open?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: I thank the member for her question, Mr. Speaker.

The first step in the process, as has been alluded to, is the site selection.

When that recommendation is brought forward we will expedite the process and

move it forward. From that, the full process of the school building kicks in,

everything from site preparation to the full tender for building of the

facility.

I cannot nail down a timeline for that, Mr. Speaker, except to say we have

allocated, I think, about $500,000 in this particular budget year alone to get

the process started. Up to this point in time and up until now, we have not

received a recommendation from the school board. So the project has been very

much sitting in their hands. Until I do receive it, I really am not in a

position to nail down a timeline.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Back in 2007, the Teacher Allocation Commission released its report entitled

Education and our Future: A Roadmap to Innovation and Excellence. Recommendation

20 of this report recommended that guidance counsellors be allocated at a ratio

of 1 to 333 students for kindergarten to Grade 12.

I ask the minister: If he can provide for me any reasons today why the

department has not acted upon and accepted that recommendation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the member for the question. She has a great line of questioning

today. That is a very important topic.

I guess the answer is that we do not accept all recommendations that come

forward. We work with a very limited resource of teachers. It is often hard to

determine what recommendations you support and you do not support, but I think

there are a couple of key pieces to remember about the guidance allocation.

First of all, we did reduce it from the initial allocation about six or seven

years ago. Secondly, I think it is also important to remember that it is not

about the allocation of guidance counsellors as much as the role and support

they perform in the school system. We did allocate, over the last two years, ten

additional career counsellor positions that are throughout the Province to help

schools with the career counselling piece of the school guidance counsellor's

role.

As well, we have engaged in more in-depth partnerships with Child, Youth and

Family Services and the Department of Health to provide supports, such as drug

and alcohol addictions counselling. All of those things, Mr. Speaker, that would

have been made a part - or expectation that guidance counsellors would have

performed. We provide those supports in other ways.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since the government took office in 2003, the number of guidance counsellors

in the system has remained stagnant, between 160 and 170 in any given year. The

Teacher Allocation Commission report tells us that this is not enough and the

Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association has agreed to that. Through

discussions with the Federation of School Councils, they have told us that the

Department of Education advised them last year that seventy-one new guidance

counsellors would be needed to fulfill the recommendations in the report.

I ask the minister: Is there anything being done to actively recruit and

increase the number of guidance counsellors in the Province to fulfill these

particular recommendations?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, to the first part of the question; the way the question was

stated, it is actually pretty good news for the Province because the member has

said clearly that the positions have remained fairly constant. The reality in

Newfoundland and Labrador is student enrolment has not; it has declined

significantly. It is our government that has maintained the positions in the

system in spite of a formula prior to our coming into office that would have

been based totally on numbers.

The second piece to the member's question, Mr. Speaker, I think is important

is, even if we were to increase the number of guidance counsellor positions in

the Province, the reality is and I do not know if the school council

federation would know this, but the NLTA knows this and school boards know this

is that we do not have enough qualified individuals to fill the positions. To

that end, we have provided support and enticements to get people to study to be

guidance counsellors, including educational leave packages offering semesters

off to attend university, and we have provided further support to the Faculty of

Education at Memorial University.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is currently a pilot project using an inclusion model being tested in

some schools across the Province. Special education teachers are concerned that

by moving to this method of teaching there will be fewer resources for

individualized instruction in the classroom.

I ask the minister: Can you provide the details or clarification as to

whether this inclusion model will result in fewer resources for individualized

instruction?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, what I can say to the member opposite is that if

there is a second area, besides teacher allocations - or a third area, I should

say, outside of teacher allocations and maintenance and capital in this Province

that we have invested in education, it is the support of students who have

special needs through the ISSP/Pathways process. Millions upon millions of

dollars have been provided, and my short answer to the member opposite is,

absolutely not. There will not be reduced resources.

In actual fact, the feedback that we get from teachers participating in the

pilot project is contrary to what the member has just said. It is very positive.

We are being told that the students, who once would have been supported through

segregation on an individual basis, are now being included in with their

classmates and their peers, and exposed to better learning opportunities and

learning environments because they are amongst a class of peers with more than

just one teacher.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the 2009 provincial Budget, the government announced two new

initiatives to address the problems of homelessness and affordable housing in

our Province. The $1.2 million Supportive Living Community Partnership Program,

and the $1 million Provincial Homelessness Fund to offset the costs of various

services. In the 2010 Budget, the Supportive Living Program was doubled to $2.4

million, while there was no increase in the Provincial Homelessness Fund.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Given the growing need for an expanded

Provincial Homelessness Fund and the benefits it provides to our communities,

will the government increase the 2011 Budget for this program?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, homelessness is a very complex issue and it is one that if it

could have been solved, I am sure other jurisdictions around the country, around

the globe, would have solved it and it would not be something that we are

looking at here today. It is not an issue that can be solved just by bricks and

mortar. It is not an issue that can be solved just by putting money into budgets

and so on. I know that the member opposite understands that, we have had the

conversation around that.

We are certainly committed to trying to find ways to move forward in solving

and reducing the incidence of homelessness in this Province. We have committed,

in many ways, and in many different directions, money, whether it is through the

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation or through initiatives in my

department, in HRLE. In fact, the member opposite has just outlined several of

those initiatives. It is a work in progress, Mr. Speaker, and as I said at the

outset of the answer, it is not something that is going to be solved very

quickly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

In response to the persistent issue of affordable housing in rural and urban

areas throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, the Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing and Homelessness Network believe that provincial action to end

homelessness and ensure housing stability must be central pillars in the Poverty

Reduction Strategy. This action must include clear targets and timetables to

deliver on the various commitments made by the government.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: If the government will work with the

network and other stakeholders to set targets and commit to them?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we are particularly proud of as we work

through our Poverty Reduction Strategy is the fact that we do work very closely

with all of our stakeholders, with all of the people who are involved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr Speaker, we will certainly commit to continuing that

partnership and that consultation process. In fact, the next phase of our

Poverty Reduction Strategy is in fact another consultation process and we

absolutely commit to meeting with all of these people, to hearing their points

of view and to trying to solve the issues together.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, what I asked was: Will she work with them to set

targets and commit to them? It is not just consultation, it is setting the

targets.

In response to comments made by the Minister Responsible for NLHC on Monday,

that there are very few provinces today that have actual rental control

legislation in place, I suggest that he could check with other provincial

ministries to learn that Ontario, British Columbia, Manitoba, Prince Edward

Island and Quebec all have some capacity of legislative rent control.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will government commit to reforming our

Province's Residential Tenancies Act in order to bring us up to the current

legislative standards in several other provinces?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, to clarify what I said in my last answer a

couple of days ago, is that there are very few jurisdictions across Canada that

actually has legislation in place with regard to rent control.

As a matter of fact, in my dialogue with the other jurisdictions that have,

which she mentioned - that a number of them are actually in the process of

repealing that piece of legislation. It is a very complex issue in regard to

rental control because you are dealing with the private sector, Mr. Speaker, and

they have to have certain profits in place. If not, they are not going to

invest.

We have to be very, very careful in regard to anywhere that we would go with

rent control because we might very well depress the market and have less units

available to the public as we have now. So we have to be very, very careful in

that regard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

By leave, I would like to go back to Notices of Motion, I have a notice of

motion that I would like to do.

MR. SPEAKER: Is leave granted for the hon. the Government House Leader to

return to Notices of Motion?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Leave.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that, under Standing Order 11, I shall move that

this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 22, 2010.

Further, I give notice, under Standing Order 11, I shall move that the House

not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 22, 2010.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Government Services, that Bill 27,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that

Bill 27,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, be now read a third 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 Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 27)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 27 has now been read a third time and it is ordered

that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act", read a third

time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 27)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of

Government Services, that Bill 28,

An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act

No. 3 be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that

Bill 28,

An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 3, be now read a third

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 Insurance Companies Act No. 3. (Bill

28)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 28 has now been read a third time and it is ordered

that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 3", read

a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 28)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of

Government Services, that Bill 29,

An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services

Act be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that

Bill 29,

An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act, be now read a third

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 Prepaid Funeral Services Act. (Bill

29)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 29 has now been read a third time, and it is ordered

that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act", read a

third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 29)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural

Resources, that Bill 30,

An Act Respecting The Health and Protection Of Animals,

be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that

Bill 30,

An Act Respecting The Health And Protection Of Animals, be now read a

third 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 Respecting The Health And Protection Of Animals.

(Bill 30)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 30 has now been 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 Respecting The Health And Protection Of Animals",

read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill

30).

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I will call from the Order Paper, Order 8, second

reading of Bill 31,

An Act Respecting Human Rights.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President

of Treasury Board, that Bill 31,

An Act Respecting Human Rights, be now read a

second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that Bill 31,

An Act

Respecting Human Rights, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Human Rights". (Bill 31)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise to introduce Bill 31 for second

reading,

An Act Respecting Human Rights, to be known as the Human Rights Act,

2010. Bill 31 will replace and repeal the current Human Rights Code.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador passed its first Human Rights Code in

1969, and which act came into force on September 1, 1971. The Human Rights Code,

Mr. Speaker, prohibits discrimination in the areas of employment, accommodation,

services and publications. The enumerated grounds of discrimination of the Human

Rights Code include race, religion, creed, political opinion, national or social

origin, sex, sexual orientation, martial status, family status, age and

disability.

One of the key features, Mr. Speaker, of the Human Rights Code is the

creation of a simplified system that allows for the mediation, adjudication and

resolution of complaints through an administrative procedure without the need to

go to court. This administrative process is run by the Newfoundland and Labrador

Human Rights Commission.

The Human Rights Commission reports administratively to the Minister of

Justice and its mandate is the promotion and understanding, acceptance of and

compliance with the Human Rights Code. The legislation requires that the

commission have a complement of three or more members. However, the government

usually appoints six commissioners, one of whom serves as chairperson and

another who serves as vice-chairperson. The commission also appoints or consists

of an executive director, legal counsel, investigative staff, and administrative

staff.

Now, Mr. Speaker, while the Human Rights Code has been amended several times

since its adoption, basically to improve administrative procedures and enhance

human rights procedures that are offered to individuals in the Province, there

have only been two comprehensive reviews of the code since 1971.

In 1988, a Human Rights Code Review Committee recommended procedural and

substantive amendments to the Human Rights Code. These procedural amendments,

Mr. Speaker, were necessary to comply with the new Charter of Rights and

Freedoms which came in 1982 and also to comply with certain federal court

decisions which related procedural provisions in the Canadian Human Rights Code,

which was similar to this Province's legislation at the time. As a result, the

Human Rights Code was consolidated and a new procedure for the adjudication of

complaints, particularly the board of inquiry system, was introduced at that

time.

That was a review, Mr. Speaker, in 1988, basically in response to the Charter

of Rights and Freedoms and in certain federal court decisions that were

improving and revising the Canadian Human Rights Code. It was from that review

that the board of inquiry system was introduced.

In December 1996, the Human Rights Commission conducted public consultations

to determine whether more amendments to the Human Rights Code were necessary.

The commission presented a report to government on December 10, 1997 in which a

number of amendments to the Human Rights Code were recommended.

A number of these amendments, Mr. Speaker, were adopted by government since

1997. They include the elimination of the age restriction of sixty-five in

employment. It added sexual orientation as prohibited grounds of discrimination.

It also added family status and age as prohibited grounds of discrimination, and

it extended the limitation period for filing a complaint from six months to

twelve months. So we have two major revisions, 1988 and 1996, to the code since

it was brought in, in 1969.

On December 10, 2008, on the occasion of the sixtieth anniversary of the

International Human Rights Day, my colleague, the current Minister of Finance

and President of Treasury Board, who was then Minister of Justice and Attorney

General, launched a review of the Human Rights Code by the Department of Justice

and announced that public consultations would take place with a view to

modernizing the Human Rights Code.

Mr. Speaker, the Human Rights Code is one of the most important pieces of

legislation we have in this Province. Given that it is forty years old, it is

felt that the time is right to ensure that this legislation adequately reflects

the society we live in and the ideas that we hold.

Mr. Speaker, society is constantly evolving and changing and legislation has

to be updated periodically to reflect those changes. That is especially true in

human rights because in a lot of cases, Mr. Speaker, attitudes towards human

rights have changed and are changing over the years towards aging, for example.

We have a different approach to same-sex marriages and relationships. As a

result of all of that, periodically, you have to review legislation to make sure

we keep it up with the times.

Mr. Speaker, as part of the consultation process the Department of Justice

prepared a discussion document and an on-line questionnaire which was posted on

its Web site from December 10 to May 2008 to May 2009 and it conducted

province-wide public consultation sessions. There were four areas, Mr. Speaker,

where the Department of Justice consulted with a view to obtaining input to

change the code. They were, number one, they wanted the expansion of human

rights protection for individuals, in other words increase the prohibited

rights system, procedural issues in other words. Three, we wanted to look at the

mandate, the role, the responsibilities and the structure of the Human Rights

Commission. Fourthly, Mr. Speaker, we wanted to look at the Human Rights

Commission's autonomy and independence and view its reporting structure to see

if it needed any changes.

There were ten public consultation sessions held, Mr. Speaker, they conducted

between January 27 and March 31, 2009. One in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador

City, Stephenville, Corner Brook, Grand Falls-Windsor, Gander, Marystown,

Clarenville and St. John's. The Department of Justice received over forty

written submissions from individuals, organizations and stakeholders involved in

the promotion and protection of human rights in this Province during the

consultation process.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of the legislative review by the Department of

Justice and invaluable input that was received from both the public consultation

process, I want to highlight the significant amendments that are proposed in

Bill 31.

Now, in addition to the input from the consultation session, the Department

of Justice did a widespread jurisdictional scan across this Province, and indeed

the Commonwealth, to get the input of best practices of the systems in other

areas, and we have tailored all of that to fit, what we think to fit, our

situation here in this Province.

The first change, then, Mr. Speaker, we have changed the name of the

legislation from a code to

an act. The use of the word code creates somewhat of

a misunderstanding, and it leads some members of the public to believe that it

has a lesser connotation; it has a connotation of being somewhat lesser than an

act, lesser than a law, and has a somewhat lesser legal effect than our other

legislation. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the Human Rights Code is

paramount to all other legislation in the Province. So this is a public

education change in the sense that it confirms that the human rights protection

is now law.

As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, in my comments to the media today, there

was a perception among the public, in the consultation sessions, there was a

finding, that people were unaware, did not have a great deal of information or

awareness or knowledge of the Human Rights Commission, what its role was, what

its function was, and what services it gave. So this is part of the education

piece that was needed as a result of that input.

We also included a

preamble. Now, Mr. Speaker, there was a

preamble in the

act initially, but it was taken out when the statutes were consolidated in 1990.

The stakeholders sent a very strong message to us that the restatement of the

preamble was a desirable change. The insertion of the

preamble, Mr. Speaker, is

an important gesture to the public and to the human rights stakeholders, and it

recognizes the legislation's quasi-constitutional status. Now, Mr. Speaker,

Newfoundland and Labrador will no longer be the only jurisdiction without a

preamble in its legislation. I am going to read the

preamble, Mr. Speaker,

because it sets the whole tone and tenor of the human rights legislation:

WHEREAS recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable

rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice

and peace in the world and is in accord with the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights as proclaimed by the United Nations;

AND

WHEREAS it is recognized in the province that every individual is free

and equal in dignity and rights without regard to his or her race, colour,

nationality, ethnic origin, social origin, religious creed, religion, age,

disability, disfigurement, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family

status, source of income and political opinion;

AND

WHEREAS it is public policy in the province to recognize the dignity and

worth of every person to provide for equal rights and opportunities without

discrimination that is contrary to law, and having as its aim the creation of a

climate of understanding and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each

person so that each person feels a part of the community and able to contribute

fully to the development and well-being of the community and the province;

AND

WHEREAS it is recognized that every person, having duties to others and

to the community to which he or she belongs, is responsible to strive for the

promotion and observance of the rights recognized in this Act.

Mr. Speaker, that

preamble now sets the focus and the tone for the

legislation.

Mr. Speaker, under

section 9 of the new act, we expand the prohibitive

grounds of discrimination to include source of income and disfigurement. We also

have a new definition of disability. The modernized definition of disability was

drafted in consultation with the Disability Policy Office. The term

disfigurement was removed from the definition of disability and is more aptly

included now as a prohibitive ground of discrimination in its own right.

We removed inappropriate and outdated terminology from the definition, and no

longer does a claimant have to indicate the cause of the disability. We removed

such termination, Mr. Speaker, as retardation, malformation and infirmity

words that the Disability Policy Office and we felt were distasteful. We cleaned

up the language and we established a separate prohibitive ground of

discrimination to include source of income and disfigurement.

Source of income is no longer limited to tenancy situations. In the old act,

in landlord tenant situations, you could not discriminate, Mr. Speaker, with a

tenant on the basis of that person's source of income, but that was the only

place that prohibitive ground applied. Now that prohibitive grounds, source of

income, is expanded to apply in other areas: areas of employment, areas of

services and publications. The rights offered to citizens of Newfoundland under

this particular prohibitive ground lags behind the other provinces or did lag

behind the other provinces, Mr. Speaker. Now it is up to date and in line with

the other provinces in our country.

As I mentioned, we expanded the prohibitive ground of discrimination to

include disfigurement. That was previously included in the definition of

disability, and no longer falls under that definition. This is a progressive

move by government because it ensures that, while such an individual may not

have a disability may have some kind of disfigurement but need not necessarily

have a disability - there is certainly a need to recognize and protect those

rights of these people and remove the possibility of discrimination, whether it

is intentional or unintentional.

We have also expanded the prohibitive grounds of discrimination to include

discrimination based on an association with a person or persons identified by a

prohibited ground of discrimination. In other words, if there is a group of

people who cannot be discriminated against under a prohibitive ground and you

happen to associate with that group then you cannot be discriminated against

either. It is a proactive step and sends a strong message re

anti-discrimination.

Discrimination is now prohibited against an individual who associates with a

person or persons, for example, who might identify with a certain religion. The

individual might not necessarily practice or follow that religion, but if he

associates with that group then he cannot be discriminated against either.

Mr. Speaker, we have adopted a merit-based appointment process for

commissioners and adjudicators which generally include experience, knowledge or

training in human rights issues. With regard to commissioners, we appoint

commissioners who have an interest or a keen interest or some experience in

human rights issues, and with respect to adjudicators we are looking for people

who have some training and expertise in human rights issues. That would enhance

the transparency of appointments and increase the perception of independence.

The current practice of this government, Mr. Speaker, is to appoint individuals

from various communities within the Province who have an appreciation for, and

an interest in, human rights issues.

We have entered a prohibition on discrimination in the making of a contract

or agreement of purchase and sale offered or held out to the public generally or

to a

section of the public. An example of this would be an agreement of purchase

and sale that is offered or held out to the public generally. Only four

jurisdictions explicitly deal with discrimination in the making of contracts,

but this offers protection to those who were historically discriminated against

because of their visible ethnicity. It is not really a big problem here in this

Province but certainly it is a problem in some others.

We also have protection against discrimination, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of

a criminal conviction unrelated to employment. This is a significant provision,

a significant change to the old code. Mr. Speaker, this protection will be

limited to discrimination in relation to employment only. By adding this

protection, the Province will recognize a historically stigmatized segment of

society and acknowledge that people with criminal convictions have already been

penalized based on a past action and should not be further sanctioned through

the exclusion from human rights protection. Mr. Speaker, this is a provision, I

am sure, which will get considerable debate and considerable discussion, and

there is a fair amount of employer discretion. Employers will have the

discretion to hire people in their business with criminal convictions, as long

as the criminal conviction is not related to the employment. For example, Mr.

Speaker, if you are running a daycare business, then you probably will not want

to hire someone who has been convicted of crimes against children. That will

evolve with case law over time, so that this provision will be fleshed out.

There is a significant amount of case law across the country dealing with that

particular provision, and there is a test, as a matter of fact, that is used by

the courts in connection with complaints under this particular provision.

This act also, Mr. Speaker, will provide the executive director with the

power to dismiss a complaint which he or she considers frivolous, vexatious or

without merit, and that amendment expands the powers of the executive director

for dismissal of a complaint. A situation where she feels, or he feels, that the

complaint does not fall under the jurisdiction of the commission, or is

frivolous or vexatious, or otherwise dealt with, it could be possibly dealt with

in another forum, through a labour disagreement or a court.

Now, Mr. Speaker, every claim that is brought to the commission must be

investigated. That creates a backlog and considerable administrative problems

for the commission. The decision of the executive director now can dismiss some

of these claims after preliminary investigations, and that decision of the

executive director is subject to a judicial review by the Trial Division of the

Supreme Court. So this will help expedite the files, Mr. Speaker, and streamline

the operation.

The new act also permits the executive director to defer further action on a

complaint if it can be dealt with more appropriate by an alternative method of

resolution under any other act, or if the grievance or other review procedures

have not been exhausted. For example, if it has been already the subject of a

labour grievance, if it has already been the subject of a disciplinary

procedure, if it is already in a court case, or some other forum, Mr. Speaker,

then the executive director can defer the action until that procedure has been

exhausted. Otherwise, employers often have to defend the same type of complaint

in multiple administrative forums, and multiplicity of actions result so that

the same issue has been heard in a number of forums at the same time. That calls

for duplicate litigation, undue cost, and inconsistent findings of fact, and it

also includes the potential for venue shopping all of which should be avoided.

So should the other proceeding appropriately be dealing with the substance of

that complaint, then the executive director can defer the complaint until that

procedure is exhausted.

This act will enable government to make regulations, Mr. Speaker, to codified

timelines for filing and other actions by complainants and respondents. That

will be instructive to the public; it will be educational to the public. It will

keep the complaints process moving expeditiously and will promote the objectives

of the whole administrative process. These objectives of the human rights

process, Mr. Speaker, are simplicity, efficiency, and effectiveness. So by

filing timelines in dealing with the files and procedures that would keep these

files moving expeditiously.

This act also codifies the commission's ability to rely upon alternate

dispute resolution processes to facilitate timely settlement and reduce

caseloads. Now, this is already a current practice, Mr. Speaker, of the Human

Rights Commission, so it is really codifying what is already in practice, we are

putting that explicitly in the act. This will also be instructive to the public

and promote the objectives of the administrative process again.

Mr. Speaker, we have expanded the definition of personal services. The

current code uses the term domestic services and is limited to those living in

the home. The new definition of personal services will be expanded to include

the work of a domestic, custodial, companionship, personal care, child care, or

educational nature. This amendment removes the requirement that the personal

service worker live in the residence.

Mr. Speaker, a little expansion on that. As of the current act, you can hire

a person you wish to work in your own home even though it conflicts with the

prohibitive grounds in the act as long as that person lives in the home. For

example, if it is a home care worker or a child care worker or some kind of a

domestic worker in the house who stays in the house, lives in the house, then

the employer had the right to choose that person regardless of the Human Rights

Code. The definition of personal service has now been extended and it removes

the requirement that the personal service worker live in the residence.

What it basically means, Mr. Speaker, it is a right to choice within a

private residence to choose a worker you wish. So, if you are of a particular

religious persuasion and you want a person of that particular religious

persuasion to work with your children, then you have the right to do that within

a private residence. You cannot advertise as such, but you have the right to do

that within a private residence.

We also have clarification in the new act that discrimination based on

pregnancy or pregnancy related conditions is now prohibited. For clarity

purposes, the prohibited ground of sex has been defined to ensure that the

public is aware that it includes pregnancy or pregnancy related conditions. This

means that women who are now pregnant or may become pregnant will be afforded

the protections under this act. This has already been read into the act by the

court, Mr. Speaker, but now we have codified it explicitly.

We have now redefined martial status. That is undefined in the current

legislation, but the new legislation, Mr. Speaker, will be consistent with the

new definition of spouse in our other provincial legislations to include

same-sex and common-law relationships.

We have also codified that a complainant may withdraw a complaint at any

stage of the process prior to the beginning of a hearing. The current

legislation is silent on that with respect to a complainant withdrawing his or

her complaint, but there is however a practice which allows a complainant to

tacitly withdraw a complaint once it has been processed through to the

commission, but now they can withdraw the complaint at any stage.

Mr. Speaker, overall, the public consultations contributed significantly to

our review of the Human Rights Code. With that said, it is not surprising that a

number of the submissions that were raised, raised issues that could not be

addressed in the legislation, or they were capable of being addressed pursuant

to the current wording of the legislation. Some of the submissions were of an

administrative nature, a policy nature, and they are capable of being addressed

by the Human Rights Commission itself, did not need to be put in legislation.

Some practical examples of these kinds of suggestions, submissions, would be,

for example, to make the Human Rights Code available to the public in alternate

languages and formats, French, Inuktitut, Innu-aimun, Mi'kmaq and auditory

versions. That is within the purview of the commission itself. We did not need

that in legislation. Making available a manual of guidelines to the public;

redesigning the Human Rights Commission Web site to be a more appropriate

educational tool; completion of an annotated Human Rights Code to accommodate

the reading levels of a greater segment of the population. These could be

recommendations and submissions that could be done by the commission and no need

to be codified in the legislation.

Another recommendation submitted by some stakeholder groups - a lot of them,

as a matter of fact - was that the government ensures that the Human Rights

Commission has the resources to carry out a comprehensive human rights education

and advocacy program.

Mr. Speaker, in Budget 2009-2010 over $500,000 was provided to the Human

Rights Commission. A portion of this funding was used to engage two additional

lawyers and an additional Human Rights Specialist, which has greatly helped

address the concerns of the backlogs that have been building up at the

commission.

As well, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, we found out in the

consultations that there was an overall lack of understanding or information

been available to the work of the Human Rights Commission. So, as a result of

that, we recognized the importance of the public education function of the Human

Rights Commission. We provided an additional $100,000 investment over the last

fiscal year for the education component of the commission's mandate. One which

we now know is vital to the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker,

the budget of the commission now stands at over $1 million, a little over $1.2

million, thanks to the investment of this government.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is also not surprising that not all of the

recommendations brought forward will be reflected in the new Human Rights Act,

2010. I mentioned earlier that some of the recommendations could be addressed by

the Human Rights Commission itself. Others, for example, have already been

addressed in the context of the

interpretation of the legislation by the

tribunals and the courts. For example, political opinion was a suggestion that

should be in there, systemic discrimination, sexual harassment. These

submissions are already covered within other provisions in the act as result of

the

interpretation of the legislation by the courts and by the tribunals.

Then, Mr. Speaker, there are other submissions that were not accepted by this

government for policy reasons. There are three of these, primarily. One,

amending the reporting structure of the Human Rights Commission, such that the

commission reports to the House of Assembly. Now with respect to the reporting

structure, during the consultation process the Department of Justice

specifically asked members of the general public and the stakeholders to comment

upon the reporting structure of the Department of Justice, as the current

department responsible for provincial human rights system and the Human Rights

Commission.

Now, no member of the general public expressed any concerns about the current

reporting structure but some stakeholders in their written submissions did

suggest that the Human Rights Commission should report to the House of Assembly,

like the Citizens' Representative and the Child and Youth Advocate. In support

of this submission, those people argued that the current structure is untenable

for a number of reasons: lack of adequate resources over the past four years;

the Human Rights Commission and the board of inquires should file a joint annual

report with the Minister of Justice; the inability of the commission to fulfill

its mandate; and the lack of perceived independence, because the Department of

Justice prepares the budget for the Human Rights Commission and represents

government when named as a respondent in human rights complains.

So while some stakeholders felt that this current reporting structure may

bring the commission's independence into question, the reporting structure, Mr.

Speaker, is not unique to this government. There has never been a situation

where the independence of the commission has been challenged. In fact, many

federal and provincial agencies, boards and commissions, report to a government

department and yet are seen to be independent and arm's-length from government.

If I could just mention a few, Mr. Speaker, the federal Immigration and

Refugee Board, for example, is one such group; the Newfoundland and Labrador

Legal Aid Commission; Nalcor; the Liquor Corporation; Workers' Compensation;

Public Service Commission. These are all groups and commissions that report to

government, but yet are seen to be independent and at arm's-length. The Human

Rights Commission of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan,

Alberta and New Brunswick all report to a minister who is responsible for the

administration of the act.

Mr. Speaker, as well, with respect to this particular argument, the mandate

of the Office of the Citizens' Rep and the Child and Youth Advocate and these

officers report to the House of Assembly but their mandate, Mr. Speaker,

differs greatly from the mandate of the Human Rights Commission. The role of the

Citizens' Representative and the role of the Child and Youth Advocate is to

investigate complaints against government with respect to its decisions, its

programs and its services. They are oversight bodies investigating complaints

against government. The Human Rights Commission is not such an oversight body,

Mr. Speaker, related to government activity. The role of the Human Rights

Commission is the protection of human rights in all aspects within the Province,

both private and public. The fact that government is at times subject to a

complaint does not mean that the government is the primary focus of the Human

Rights Commission's responsibility.

As well, there are current legislative safeguards in place to ensure the

independence of the Human Rights Commission, such as the appointment of

independent commissioners, the appointment of an independent board of inquiry.

Both of these groups have a requirement to submit an activity plan to the

minister for annual tabling in the House of Assembly. Further, given the

quasi-judicial status of the Human Rights Commission, all decisions of the board

of inquiry are subject to judicial review.

Now, Mr. Speaker, neither has the Human Rights Commission advocated for this

change. We believe strongly that having the support of a minister responsible

for the Human Rights Commission enhances the administration of human rights and

its mandate in this Province. In addition, this government has increased the

budget and human resources of the commission. As mentioned earlier, the budget

now stands at over $1.2 million. So the concerns, Mr. Speaker, that were

presented in support of that argument of reporting to the House of Assembly,

these concerns in our estimation have been alleviated.

There was also a proposal, a submission, Mr. Speaker, to change the structure

of the Human Rights Commission from that of a commission model to a direct

access model, such as in British Columbia, I think, and Quebec.

In this Province, Mr. Speaker, we follow a commission model. That model is

designed to allow any person to pursue a complaint of discrimination at no cost

to themselves. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of people who may not be aware of

the procedure, a complaint is entered with the intake officers at the Human

Rights Commission and it is investigated by a lawyer or a human rights

specialist, and at that point in time information is gathered. They can visit

the workplace. They can interview witnesses and they prepare the file to move on

up the ladder, but at any time that file can be settled. At any time it can be

settled. The file then goes to the Human Rights Commission, who meets three or

four times a year, and the commission decides whether or not the file will go a

tribunal, to an adjudicator.

So, there is a series of levels in the procedure. The commission carries that

file from the point at which it is entered. It has the responsibility for

carrying the complaints, provides a legal representation. It appears on behalf

of the complainants if their cases are referred to a hearing, if they go to the

tribunal or if they go to court. The officials and lawyers, legal people from

the commission, carries that complaint right through its completion.

In the direct access model, such as in British Columbia and Ontario, that

model allows complainants to file all complaints directly with the Human Rights

Tribunal. It bypasses all the preliminary steps, and they file their complaint

directly with the Human Rights Tribunal. It does not provide for an

investigation of complaints by any independent parties and the complainants are

left to seek independent legal advice and education from the private Bar or any

publicly-funded legal aid support clinic, or represent themselves. In other

words, they do it at their own cost. Mr. Speaker, that might cut down a lot of

time in getting their complaints directly with the human rights tribunal, but

what it means is a backlog of cases then at the tribunal level, which can cause

administrative headaches.

Mr. Speaker, this government believes that the commission model is better

suited to fulfill the goals of legislation in this Province. The Department of

Justice also believes that, given our provincial population and the number of

annual complaints, it would be administratively inefficient to divide up the

tasks of the commission, as this would do; you would separate the task of public

education, adjudication and legal support in three different components, three

different areas, three different jurisdictions, as in the case of British

Columbia and Ontario. That submission, Mr. Speaker, was not accepted by the

department.

The third one, Mr. Speaker, which was not accepted, was to expand the

definition of discrimination to include systemic discrimination. Now, it has

been suggested that clarity be brought to the act by including the words

"systemic discrimination". Mr. Speaker, our jurisdictional scan has revealed

that only two jurisdictions in Canada explicitly refer to systemic

discrimination: Manitoba and the Yukon. The Supreme Court of Canada has defined

systemic discrimination from an employment context, and that definition

continues to be the current state of law in this area. It is clear, Mr. Speaker,

from a review of our code, that it does not preclude complaints of systemic

discrimination, and therefore we felt there was no need to amend the legislation

in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, as we embarked on the public consultation process, this

government was open to a comprehensive and critical overview of the Human Rights

Code, and the proposed amendments reflect the input we received from the

consultation, and that extensive jurisdictional analysis that we did.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill 31,

An Act Respecting Human Rights, will enhance the

current protections for individuals; it will modernize legislation; it will

reflect the many current operational practices and policies of the Human Rights

Commission; and, it will make our new legislation consistent with national

standards and jurisprudence.

This process, Mr. Speaker, has been an important exercise, not only for the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador but also for the people of our Province.

This act will serve as the guidepost for how we treat each other in our society,

and I am confident, Mr. Speaker, it reflects the values of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, and will do so for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to introduce Bill 31 today in

second reading. I ask the support of all hon. members in passing this bill, and

I look forward to the participation of members from both sides in the debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

I am really pleased this afternoon to have the opportunity to stand and to

speak to Bill 31,

An Act Respecting Human Rights. We have been looking forward

to this act. It is an extremely important act, and it is something that many

people in the Province have been awaiting and have been looking forward to.

The act that we have before us is something that has gone through an

intensive consultation process, and I was pleased about that consultation

process. There were many groups who lobbied for a long time to have the

legislation brought up to date.

While not everywhere in the Province was human rights a hot issue for people

as the Department of Justice went around holding hearings, it certainly was here

in St. John's. If I am not mistaken, I think two sessions had to be held for

hearings, and I was very pleased to take

part in one of those sessions and to

have the opportunity to present to the representatives of the Department of

Justice, who were the ones who were sort of in charge of the consultation

process and have been involved all the way through in working in the department

in writing the new act that we have before us today in the form of Bill 31.

Back in 2008, just two years ago, the Auditor General's report indicated that

there were many problems with the commission, and identified many problems, but

what he identified in particular was related to insufficient resources provided

to the commission to be able to properly do its job. I have to say that it is

really good to know that in this year's Budget and the minister has made

reference to it the Budget went up from, I think, about $400,000 to $1.2

million for the commission. I certainly commend both the Minister of Justice and

the Minister of Finance on making that happen, because there has been a serious

backlog at the commission, as the minister has acknowledged, and there have been

other issues, work that the commission has not been able to do because of having

inadequate resources. The increase in the budget is certainly going to allow

that to happen.

One of the things that will need to happen - and I think that it became

obvious as the lawyers from the Department of Justice went around the Province

and did not have a lot of people turning out for the hearings, I think that was

an indication of the need for education that needs to be done by the commission.

Certainly, one of the things that will happen because of an increase in the

budget, I hope, and I am looking forward to it, is a greater profile of the

Human Rights Commission involved more in educating people in the Province with

regard to their human rights, and the human rights of everybody in the Province,

because that is part of their responsibility. I think the responsibility of the

commission is not just to make sure that people's rights are honoured in the

Province, and not just to make sure that the legislation is being followed in

the Province, but also to make sure that people know and understand what their

rights are, and what is the protection that they have under the legislation. I

am very pleased that has happened, that we have an increase in the budget and

that kind of work is now going to happen because of the increase in resources to

the commission.

When we call for more services and improved services, unfortunately, often -

not always, but often - money is attached to that. That is not a call for more

money to be spent; it is not to spend more money. It is, if a service has to

happen then make the service happen. Educating people to their rights, and

educating people more and more to the complexity of our society here in

Newfoundland and Labrador, and to the complexity of human rights, is an

essential part of the work of the commission. As I have said, I am very pleased

that more resources have been given to the commission to do their work.

I would like to do something that the minister did not do, but I think it is

important to do it for members of our community out there who are watching this

afternoon. There are a lot of people who do watch us. The minister made

reference to the fact that we now have a

preamble once again for our bill. We

had a

preamble originally, and then in a rewriting of the act, I think back in

1992, the

preamble was dropped. Now we have a

preamble again.

When I made my presentation in the hearings that took place here in St.

John's, I did recommend that a

preamble be put in. One of the reasons for

putting the

preamble in is for people to understand what the basis of human

rights is. Some of the basis for human rights has to do with international

agreements that Canada is part of, and international recognition of rights.

There are two documents in particular. One is the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights, a UN document - they are both UN documents - the Universal Declaration

of Human Rights, which is sort of the Bible for us in some ways, or the Koran

for us, whichever religious book we want to mention, when it comes to

recognizing human rights on an international level. That document, the UN

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is mentioned in the

preamble to the new

act.

The other one that would have been nice to have in there, it is not. It would

have been nice to have in, again, a UN document. The International Covenant on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which are also a basis for our

understanding of human rights on an international level. The writers of the

document did not choose to put that UN document in the

preamble, but certainly

the spirit of that document is in the act itself.

What I would like to do, Mr. Speaker, is read the

preamble of the bill so

that those watching understand the basis

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: You already did it? Okay, I missed that. I am sorry, Mr.

Minister. I had to step out and speak to the media when the minister started. So

I will not repeat what the minister did because I want to use my time to make

other points.

So, just to say that now that we have this

preamble, it is very, very

important because it gives us a solid grounding for why we have the act that we

have and why we believe in human rights. If somebody cannot be convinced after

reading this

preamble that we need human rights, then we would have to question

what kind of thinking is going on in their heads.

Having said that, I would like pick up then no, first of all, before doing

that, I would like to mention some of the things in the act that I am very

pleased about. Some of them have been mentioned by the minister, but I would

like to point out that I do support them and what it is that I support.

As the minister has said, one of the important things about the document is

that it has modernized language. We have language in our current act which is

very old language and which is actually based on what would now be considered

biases and prejudices even in our act on human rights. So modernizing the

language is extremely important. One example of that, for example, is under

disabilities in the current act that we are changing. We use the word

retardation in our current act. That is just not a word that we use in the

present. That was part of the definition of a mental disability. So finally that

word has been taken out of our act as we bring this bill in. There were quite a

number of phrases like that in the act.

As a matter of fact, when I was preparing last fall to make a presentation

about the act, I was surprised at some of the language that was in it. Because

what shocked me was the realization that we used to use these terms twenty,

twenty-five years ago without even thinking about it, that they seemed quite

okay to us. What this act is doing is totally upgrading our thinking.

Some of the other things, of course, that had to be modernized are changes

that have been made to our legislation. It is actually legislative change that

has dictated the change of language in the new act that we are discussing. One

example of that, of course, is our definition of marriage. That has definitely

changed in the Province. It has changed legislatively. We now recognize same-sex

marriage. So that language change had to be made in the document. I am very

pleased that, of course, we are now in the twenty-first century when it comes to

the language that we are using in our document.

Another thing that has happened is including more things in prohibited

grounds, when it comes to grounds for claiming discrimination. Discrimination

based on source of income is one thing. For example, sometimes people who are on

Income Support get discriminated against. It is part of their experience and I

know that presentations about that were made when the hearings were held. I am

really glad to know that we now recognize that legislatively by saying that we

cannot have discrimination based on a person's source of income. We cannot make

judgements on people because their income comes from Income Support, for

example. So this is a real step forward, Mr. Speaker.

Another new prohibited ground has to do with this disfigurement. It is very

interesting, because disfigurement very often in the past - for example,

somebody could have a really visible and really bad birthmark, bad in the sense

that it really stands out. It makes a person look different. I think there used

to be a mentality that a birthmark sometimes of that nature, people thought that

the person with that birthmark was not very intelligent or they could not

contribute to society or whatever. By naming disfigurement as a prohibited

ground, what we are doing is acknowledging that nothing like that should ever be

a basis for any kind of discrimination against a person. While it is going to

take time to change people's attitudes and people's behaviour because we do

know that you still get people mocking somebody who has some kind of a

disfigurement the more we have in legislation and the more that we educate

people, it will slowly change society and change people's behaviour when it

comes to discriminating against somebody because of a disfigurement.

Another one that has been brought in, which I think is extremely important,

is clarifying the issue around, that you cannot discriminate based on pregnancy.

Pregnancy used to come under sex in the old act. You could not discriminate on

sex, and then part of that was pregnancy. I think it is extremely important that

it has been clarified because there are cases out there, and I am sure Labour

Relations has had to deal with it, where sometimes women do not get hired

because of the potential that the woman can get pregnant. So you have a company

or a business place saying: Oh, I do not want another woman here because in a

year's time how old is she? Okay, well, in a year's time she is probably going

to get pregnant and we have another maternity leave that we are going to have to

deal with.

I know of cases like that, particularly when I was with Women in Resource

Development, which was dealing with women's employment. We had women come to us

who had that kind of thing happen to them. So now, with pregnancy so well

clarified, because in the new act what it says is that it is both, not just a

woman who is pregnant being discriminated against but a woman who can become

pregnant being discriminated against. So even before and after becoming

pregnant, that cannot be used as a ground for discrimination. That is extremely

important for women, Mr. Speaker.

Another one of the prohibited grounds I know the minister went through some

of them, but I did want to speak to that one in particular. Another important

one is the criminal conviction, where the criminal conviction is not related to

employment. Somebody could have had a conviction going back to when they were

eighteen years old and it is a conviction that has nothing to do with their life

at the moment, has nothing to do - now maybe in their thirties or their forties

- with getting employed. So by putting in the legislation that we cannot use

criminal conviction when it is not related to employment as a prohibited ground,

it frees people up, and if ever they experience discrimination because of a

criminal record that did not relate in any way to a current employment, they

would be able to come to the commission and claim discrimination. That is

extremely important.

We had a briefing on the act and I did ask the lawyers this morning - well,

this can happen also if somebody is pardoned of a conviction. What they pointed

out, and I think it is important for the public to know it, that being pardoned

does not happen automatically. Somebody has to apply to be pardoned of a

criminal conviction and they have to pay to have it processed. What this does,

the fact that criminal convictions is not related to employment is now a

prohibited ground for discrimination, this means that the person does not have

to prove it any more, they do not have to go and look for a pardon of that

conviction. That takes the onus off the individual to have to be seeking that

pardon in order to be free when looking for employment. I am really glad to see

that kind of onus being taken off the individual in terms of the individual's

responsibility.

I will not go through all of the things that I am pleased about in the

document. There are many, but I did want to highlight some of the important

ones.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do is talk about some of the areas

where I think that the document, the bill, could have gone further. I heard the

minister's explanation on some of the issues I am going to speak to and I want

to present my position on some of those issues that the minister raised. They

are issues that I was going to be speaking to, and having heard him give his

explanation, I am really glad to have the opportunity to speak further to some

of them.

The first one that I want to speak to is the whole issue of the independence

of the commission. I have heard the minister's explanation. I heard the same

explanation this morning when we had our briefing, but I have to say that I am

still not content with the explanation, and I am not content with the fact that

the Human Rights Commission does not stand alone as do statutory offices, but

instead reports to the Minister of Justice. I want to give some history around

that issue and explain more why I presented in the hearings that it should stand

alone and why I still think it should stand alone.

In 1985 there was a report that had been commissioned called the Stevenson

report, and it recommended that the Human Rights Commission be accountable to a

human rights committee of the House of Assembly rather than to a minister. Now,

that was an early thought on this, that it would be accountable to a human

rights committee of the House of Assembly rather than to a minister. In 1992,

the Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Association recommended to the Wells

Administration that the commission needs to be perceived as independent, and

thus must answer to the House. There are different ways of answering to the

House. One way would be through a human rights committee of the House, another

is just directly to the House itself without a committee. Either way, this is an

idea that has been generated here in the House of Assembly since 1985. Then

there was another recommendation repeated in 1996, again by the Newfoundland and

Labrador Human Rights Association, in a presentation that was made in 1996, that

the commission should be governed the same as statutory offices.

Now, I want to explain why I think this is important. I agree with the

association that made this representation on a couple of occasions to

government. I agree with the Stevenson report. The Human Rights Commission is in

the same kind of ballpark as the Child and Youth Advocate, as the Citizens'

Representative, in particular, where it is a body that advocates for, that makes

judgements about whether or not people are being treated fairly by legislation.

With the Child and Youth Advocate, it has to do specifically with how children

and youth are being treated under the Child, Youth and Family Services

department of government in particular. With the Citizens' Representative, the

Citizens' Representative looks at somebody who feels they have been treated

unfairly anywhere within the government system. They can go to the Citizens'

Representative and the Citizens' Representative looks at the government system

that the person is saying is not treating them fairly and makes a judgement on

that.

The Human Rights Commission is in the same field. It is in the field of

taking personal complaints against the system and making judgements on it. So

when we look at it from that perspective, all of those arms of government the

Auditor General is in a similar position. All of those arms of government need

to be perceived by the public as there completely for them, as being totally

separate from a ministry, because a ministry is part of government. A ministry

is part of the government system. A ministry is, I do not what to say dictated

to, but how a ministry operates is also dependent on the values, the goals, the

vision of the government that is in power, to use our language, of the

government that has the majority in a House. Ministries are under a minister of

that government and whether or not the ministry is fair and always open and

unbiased et cetera is not the point. The point is that people can perceive that

a ministry is not that. That if they are going to make a complaint that has to

do with a ministry, for example, which is quite possible, they need to feel that

the body they are going to is going to be totally unbiased.

That is one of the reasons why so many people have made recommendations to

governments in this Province on a number of occasions that the Human Rights

Commission should stand alone and the way to do that, of course, is to make it a

statutory office and to allow it then to have complete independence, not just in

fact but also in perception. So it is something that I hope that the Department

of Justice will continue looking at.

Now that we have finally brought in changes to this legislation to the

current act after many years of needing it, I hope that the Department of

Justice will continue to listen, continue to think about issues that were

brought to them during the hearings because I do not think that I was the only

person who brought this issue to the hearings when the hearings were held. I

would like to think that the information that was given to the department during

the hearings that that is living information. It is information that will stand

for a long time and can be reviewed and looked at again by the department. That

is what I would ask the minister to think about, to think about keeping all that

information alive, think about the fact that this information did not come just

from people thinking this would be a good thing to say, that they really did

think it through.

It really is important that people really feel that even the potential of

conflict of interest does not happen, that the commission must be made

answerable to the House of Assembly and not to the Minister of Justice, that all

the perception of conflict of interest, even the potential of real conflict of

interest, be set aside. This is the way to set it aside, Mr. Speaker, by making

the Human Rights Commission an independent body, making it a statutory office.

As I said a minute ago, I hope that this is an idea that will not be put to rest

and not be looked at again. I know that across the country there are many

jurisdictions that have not done this, but there are jurisdictions that have,

and on a federal level the federal Human Rights Commission is totally

independent and answerable to the House of Commons, not to the ministry.

I would like to read what was in the Auditor General's 2008 report where he

says, "There could be a perceived conflict of interest when the Commission has

to hear cases in which Government is named as a respondent given the current

budget and reporting process. The Commission's budget is approved by the

Department of Justice and, unlike the Canadian Human Rights Commission which

reports directly to Parliament, the Commission has to provide its annual report

to the Minister of Justice who is then responsible for tabling it in the House

of Assembly".

Systemically, it is not a good way to go, Mr. Speaker. Systemically, we need

to have the commission separate, on its own, both in perception and in reality.

Once again, I ask the minister to give further thought to maybe down the road,

maybe in a year's time, bringing in a new amendment with regard to this, to look

a bit more seriously at how the Canadian Human Rights Commission operates. That

would be, I think, a really good way to go.

The second issue that I want to speak to, and the minister did pick up on

this, too, the minister picked up on the point that I am going to speak to as

well, and gave his thinking on it, and the thinking of the Department of Justice

on it, but again I would like to speak further to it, Mr. Speaker, because I

actually do not agree with the position of the Department of Justice and of the

minister on this one. It has to do with systemic discrimination.

Systemic discrimination is something that people do not think about. Very

often, people get upset when they are told something they have done is

discrimination. They say: Well, I did not mean that as discrimination. I do not

discriminate against that group of people, or I do not discriminate against that

individual. I did not mean it that way.

What people do not understand is that sometimes certain discrimination is so

prevalent in our society, it is so systemic, that we maintain the discrimination

without even realizing that is what we are doing. There are different examples

one could use, and all of them are sort of difficult, but let's take it from the

perspective of a woman. For example, when it comes to language, very often men

will use language not understanding that the language they are using, which

excludes women in the language, does that; the language actually excludes women.

I actually heard somebody publicly, the other day, use the term men when they

meant men and women, and the person indicated - it was a person in the public

sphere - the person indicated: Okay, women, I mean men in the general term.

Well, the thing is, there is no such thing as men in the general term. Yes,

100 years ago we used the term man in a genealogical way to mean men and women,

but with the changes in our society that have happened over the last 100 years

we no longer use the word or I hope we don't man, thinking that it means men

and women, because it does not anymore in our language.

So if somebody continues to use that language because they are still in a

context where they hear it used that way, then we need to point out to them:

that is systemic discrimination. That is something that is there in our society,

it is systemic, and we have to name that the systemic discrimination is wrong.

When an individual discriminates coming out of an attitude that is in our

society, they are not doing it deliberately but they still are discriminating.

In the new act there is a clause that talks about discrimination that is

intentional and discrimination that is not intentional. So, in actual fact,

somebody who is discriminating based on one of the grounds for discrimination in

the new act and really did not mean it that way, but it was discriminatory

because - it just was discriminatory, then that is going to be able to be

declared and a complaint can be made. My concern is that, that phrase,

intentional and unintentional, does not cover some of the aspects of systemic

discrimination that we need to cover. I will use an example of that which will

probably make it very clear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker is having difficulty hearing the hon. member speak.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am having a problem trying to speak over the noise, so I appreciate that.

I use an example from the workplace, and this again was something that I

experienced when I was the Executive Director of Women in Resource Development.

A company continually, over a period of time, case after case after case,

discriminating against the hiring of women, especially a company where the

majority of workers there were male workers in what would have been seen in

other times as men's jobs - even using the terms men's jobs; there is no such

thing as a man's job, a woman's job, but it would have been seen as work that

only men did. Well, that is discriminatory.

What has happened in the past with the commission is that somebody goes to

the commission with, say, her own case of discrimination with a company, and the

commission looks at her case all by itself; but, when that woman points out that

this company has a history of doing this in the company, it is their culture, it

is their attitude, the commission in the past, for various reasons, and one of

them may have been because of having inadequate resources - and that was said to

me today by the Department of Justice people who briefed us, it may have been

because of inadequate resources - but the commission saying, no, it does not

matter what other examples you are going to give us from that company, we have

to look at your case all by itself - Mr. Speaker, that, in my books, is wrong.

Today, when we met with the people from the Department of Justice, they said,

well, now that the department has more resources, now that the department has

another specialist, now that they have more people to work in the department, I

can be assured that will not happen again; that only looking at a case all by

itself and not looking at the case in the context of a workplace, for example,

or in the context of whatever the discrimination is, will not happen again. I

have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not have that confidence that the members of

the Department of Justice had when they said that to me this morning probably

because of the systemic nature of discrimination. Unless we do continual

bringing up of this issue, and continually calling upon the Human Rights

Commission, I do not have gre