April 24, 2008            HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS               Vol. XLVI   No. 16


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

Admit strangers.

Today the House of Assembly is very pleased to welcome athletes from the 2008 Special Olympics – National Winter Games Team. These athletes are from the Districts of Mount Pearl North, Mount Pearl South, St. John's North and Gander. Present today are members of the gold medal winning floor hockey team, and bronze medal winners in snowshoeing. They are accompanied by their coaches.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today, members' statements will be from: the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl South, by leave; the hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; the hon. the Member for the District of The Isles of Notre Dame; the hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands; and, the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's East.

The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to congratulate the weather office staff in Cartwright, Labrador, on receiving an International Certificate from the Global Climate Observing Secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland, in recognition of their performance and excellence.

Mr. Speaker, this award is presented to weather stations around the world in recognition of performance excellence. In the past three years, the Cartwright weather office has provided 75 per cent of its climate reports, and has sent 50 per cent of all possible historical data to the GSN archive, and it is important to note that they have been contributing to the GSN archive for the last forty years.

Mr. Speaker, the Cartwright weather station is owned by NAV Canada and contracted out by Nortech Holdings Limited. Its primary mandate is to observe aviation weather conditions, but the Cartwright weather office also does synoptic weather observations which are conducted at three- to six-hour intervals specified by the World Meteorological Organization. These observations are also used for global warming research.

The work that this office produces is certainly important, and it is a testament to their efficiency, and they are internationally recognized for their efforts.

Mr. Shawn Rickard, with Environment Canada, presented this award and pointed out the significance of a weather station in a small community receiving such a prestigious award. Recipients of this award included supervisor Robyn Holwell, Sharon Martin, Rodney Hopkins, Andrea Pardy, and Phoebe Davis.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members in the House to join me in congratulating the staff at the Cartwright weather office on their award for performance and excellence, and being internationally recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Special Olympics in Newfoundland and Labrador is dedicated to enriching the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians through sport. Their organization currently boasts about 500 athletes in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to recognize the floor hockey team, the Gold Medal Floor Hockey Team: Harry Fitzgerald, Travis Sceviour, Eddy Hynes, David Wells, Janet Maher, Mark Peddle, Danny Russell, Nadia Brenton, Matthew Kelly, Eddy Furlong, Robert McGrath, Andrew Ash, Andrew Hynes, Willie Winters and Dion Cantwell. The Snowshoeing Team, Mr. Speaker: Sarah Brown, Johnny Philpott and Justin Lahey.

The coaches are: Darren Reid, Eileen Reid, Onslow Brenton, Evan Ash, Roger Head, Mary Holloway and Valerie Mueller.

Mr. Speaker, these athletes did us quite an honour to represent this Province, and we are all proud of each and every one of them. I would like to take this time to ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating these fine athletes, their coaches, and the entire Special Olympics Team organization for a job well done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to deliver accolades to the Conne River Mi'kmaq Performance Choir. Under the leadership of Director Brenda Jeddore, this talented group of young individuals are reviving their heritage and sharing their astounding voices around the globe.

Accompanied by the traditional caribou skin drum, they perform their native dance and sing in many languages, including Micmac, English and Hebrew. Over the last ten years, the Choir has performed at a number of prestigious ceremonies, such as Tokyo and Hiroshima, where they sang at the Peace Monument as well as the St. Elizabeth University for survivors of the A-bomb.

They have performed with the Newfoundland Symphony Youth Choir, the Mount Pearl Show Choir and the Icelandic Choir. Their presence is regularly requested at Aboriginal conferences and pow-wows across the nation. They also excel each year at the Central Newfoundland Kiwanis Music Festival.

This Choir indeed serves the district proud, and they continue to demonstrate excellence in musical performance and sustaining this Province's cultural heritage. They have been invited to represent all First Nations peoples during the opening ceremonies of the Vancouver 2010 Olympics.

To hear them first hand, attend the Grand Opening of the Arts and Exploration Centre on May 9 in the Coast of Bays.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all members of this House join me and my constituents in commending the Conne River Band Council and the Conne River Mi'kmaq Performance Choir for their commitment to excellence and revival of traditional skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Isles of Notre Dame.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to pay tribute to Dr. Mohamed Ravalia, the Senior Medical Officer of Notre Dame Bay Memorial Health Centre in Twillingate. A native of Zimbabwe, Dr. Ravalia has been a pillar of the medical community in the Twillingate and New World Island region for the past twenty-three years. His hard work and commitment is much appreciated and has been highly recognized.

As an Associate Professor of Memorial's Faculty of Medicine, Dr. Ravalia has been a five-time recipient of the Community Physician Teaching Award, as selected by graduating medical students.

Recognition for his contributions to rural medicine was also bestowed upon Dr. Ravalia when he was named the Newfoundland and Labrador 2004 Family Physician of the Year.

Mr. Speaker, in October 2006, Dr. Ravalia was also awarded the prestigious Donald I. Rice Award by the Canadian College of Family Physicians. This award recognizes an outstanding Canadian family physician for his or her contributions to teaching, vision and leadership in the field of medicine. During Dr. Ravalia's two year tenure, he has had opportunity to present his perspectives at chapter meetings of family physicians across Canada.

Dr. Ravalia is widely respected for his leadership in Primary Health Care reform, he is highly recognized as an authority on the challenges facing international medical graduates when coming to practice in Canada, and he is revered by medical students and residents training to be the doctors of tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of Twillingate and New World Island, I ask all members of this House to extend a sincere thank you to Dr. Mohamed Ravalia, for his twenty-three commitment to the residents of Twillingate and New World Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this great House today to recognize a very successful fisherman in the Bay of Islands.

Mr. Speaker, John Roy Hackett was born on Woods Island in 1932, and at the age of twelve years old Mr. Hackett started his fishing career hauling lobster pots in a row dory; however, tragedy struck this young man at the age of eighteen, as within three years he lost his mother, father and sister.

Mr. Hackett became involved in the herring fishery at the age of seventeen, and purchased his first seiner, The Silver Dolphin, in 1970. He also co-owned a fish plant in Cox's Cove known as T & H Fisheries.

Mr. Hackett eventually sold his vessel and ownership of the fish plant now being operated by Barry's Fisheries. He retired in 1991.

Mr. Hackett and his late wife Katherine are the parents of six girls and one boy.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members in this great House to acknowledge and show our appreciation to this great family man, businessperson and gentleman.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Mr. Speaker, when one reflects on a life well lived, there will certainly be periods of time that have to be considered as highlights. For one resident of St. John's East, December of 2007 must surely rank as one of these periods.

On December 7, Dr. Paul O'Neill was invested into the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador at Government House. A mere eleven days later, on December 18, he received the ACTRA Award of Excellence, which recognizes individuals who have made a significant contribution to the arts.

Dr. O'Neill's career has been as varied as it has been long. He is most familiar to most of us as an executive producer with CBC. His tenure there saw the emergence of many of the talented performers who have become national icons for our fine tradition of entertainment. His career as a writer is highlighted by a history of our capital city entitled The Oldest City - The Story of St. John's, a staple in any collection of Newfoundland literature.

Dr. O'Neill has made a profound mark on our Province in the realm of theatre also, translating his love for the stage into creating, acting with and directing a variety of theatre groups over the years.

Over forty organizations have benefited from his volunteer work, ranging from the John Howard Society to the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council.

Mr. Speaker, a minute is not nearly enough time to pay tribute to this remarkable son of our Province, but today I ask all members in this House to join me in congratulating Dr. Paul O'Neill on his many contributions and achievements.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today to provide honourable colleagues and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with an update on Cooke Aquaculture's operations on the Province's South Coast.

At the present time, Cooke Aquaculture is employing 165 individuals full-time at the Harbour Breton processing facility. This includes plant management staff and persons working on harvesting vessels. In the coming days, an additional ten to twelve seasonal positions will be made available at the plant. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, the company's farms in the region are employing 100 people on a full-time basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: The total direct employment with Cooke operations is now approaching 300 people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, these employment levels are well above those projected by Cooke Aquaculture prior to operations beginning in Newfoundland and Labrador. This is tremendous news for the people of Harbour Breton and indeed the people of the South Coast as a whole.

In October 2006, our government was pleased to announce, under the Aquaculture Capital Equity Investment Program, a contribution of $10 million toward Cooke Aquaculture's endeavours in our Province. We are certainly delighted with the very positive impact that the company and indeed our investment is already beginning to have on the Connaigre Peninsula.

All agreements between the provincial government and Cooke Aquaculture have been finalized, and $7.5 million of our investment have been provided to the company. The balance of the government's investment will be delivered upon the completion of a hatchery by Cooke in this Province. To date, Cooke's investment in our Province exceeds $40 million.

Mr. Speaker, our government continues to make strategic investments into our aquaculture sector and the results have been tremendous. A key piece of our investment has been the establishment of the Aquaculture Loan Guarantee Program, a tripling of the funding for aquaculture in 2006 and over $14 million for aquaculture in 2007.

Such investments have played a key role in the growth of the Newfoundland and Labrador aquaculture sector. By the end of 2008, the production and the value of the industry will have doubled from 2005.

Mr. Speaker, our government has shared with industry the vision that Newfoundland and Labrador has the wherewithal to create a viable, self-sustaining and self-financing aquaculture sector. When the industry needed working capital and equity financing, we developed the appropriate programming to provide it. Indeed, we have shared in the vision and we have certainly shared in the risk.

We acknowledge that our industry still faces many challenges, but we are encouraged by the success achieved to date. We anticipate further good news over the coming months.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in celebrating the successes of our aquaculture sector and in wishing Cooke Aquaculture and the people of the South Coast all the best in this new industry as it continues to develop in the future.

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.

Mr. Speaker, this is indeed good news. I could not be any more pleased for any community in this Province than I am for the people in Harbour Breton today. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that this is a community that needs to be commended for their own efforts, as well, because over the last number of years they have been tackled by despair and many challenges in the fishing industry. When their plant closed I think we will all have, forever enshrined in our memories, the scenes of people leaving the community and moving on and the tremendous amount of despair that existed there at the time.

So, this is indeed good news. What I say is, thank God, for people like Cooke Aquaculture. Thank God for people who are prepared to invest in our Province, provide us the ingenuity of being able to take an industry to the level that we have seen the aquaculture industry take in this Province today. Mr. Speaker, this shows their long-term commitment to an industry in this Province, and in the region of the Connaigre Peninsula where it is very desperately needed right now.

So, Mr. Speaker, what I would say is that we are very enthusiastic about this, we are very supportive of it and we certainly want to commend all of those involved, and also to recognize the tremendous amount of investment, financially, that Cooke Aquaculture has made in our Province. Forty-million dollars is a lot of money by any company to invest in a region of the Province in any industry, and to point out that if you look at the aquaculture export value last year in our Province, I think it was equivalent to their investment, somewhere around $40 million as well.

We look forward to good things, good jobs, and a solid industry for the people on the Connaigre Peninsula, and indeed the people of Harbour Breton.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I, too, thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement, and it is a good news statement.

I, too, echo the thoughts of my colleague that this is wonderful for Harbour Breton. I am delighted to see that a company such as Cooke would come in and give this support to this industry - to the aquaculture sector, and I am really glad to see the minister giving us an update.

I look forward to other updates from the minister with regard to other aspects of our fishing industry. Things have been pretty silent lately, yet I know that there are a lot of issues going on out there. I would look forward to hearing, for example, just to choose one, to hear what the minister and the ministry is doing, while still trying to get early pensions, early retirement for plant workers who need that, so that younger people can come into the fishing industry. There are two reasons for that issue, and that is the two. We have plant workers who are tired and need early retirement, but we need to get our younger people up and into the industry.

So I look forward to hearing what kind of investment the government is going to make into that aspect of our fishing industry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Human Resource, Labour and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my hon. colleagues of this government's commitment to advance the interests of persons with disabilities and to support measures to increase their opportunity to participate in the labour market.

I was honoured to recently accept a new role as Minister Responsible for Persons with Disabilities. As outlined in the recent Speech from the Throne, our government is committed to the establishment of a new division of disabilities. Individuals living with a disability, and advocates for the disabled, believe that this is long overdue. I look forward to leading this division as I see it to be a critically important policy and program area for our government.

This year, staff will be hired to manage the new division. As well, in consultation with the disabilities community, a comprehensive study will be conducted to better understand the complex barriers that persons with disabilities too often encounter in accessing public services, pursuing an education and securing meaningful employment. Our government will work in partnership with persons with disabilities, advocates and service delivery agencies as we move forward with these community consultations. This work will serve to identify new directions, and complement existing programs and services.

Mr. Speaker, as one example, last year we provided increased supports to foster greater labour market participation for persons with disabilities. Approximately $1 million was allocated through the Poverty Reduction Strategy to help persons with disabilities get better connected to work. To this end, government is supporting the Independent Living Resource Centre in the delivery of a new internship program. In partnership with the supported employment corporations throughout our Province, individuals with an intellectual disability are being assisted as they make the transition from school to employment. Government is supporting accommodation in the workplace through the deployment of assistive devices and adaptation. There is also, Mr. Speaker, a targeted wage subsidy program to encourage private sector employers to hire post-secondary graduates with a disability.

This government believes in the promotion of inclusion and the establishment of practices that enable everyone to participate in all that our society has to offer. Persons with disabilities can make a significant contribution to the collective wealth and prosperity of our Province. Our government will continue to support and advance policies and programs which bring people in, encourage greater self-reliance, and promote equality of opportunity. The new Division of Disabilities is a firm step in the right direction.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an advanced copy of the minister's statement.

It is indeed rewarding and it is nice to hear what the plans are and to see some flesh being put on the bones here, as it were. We heard about it in the election run-up and we heard about it in the Throne Speech. Now we are getting some concrete information and directions from the government and this minister as to how he plans to actually implement the new division and what kind of foundation we are going to end up with it.

I think it is a good start, particularly the study, and the fact that you are going to consult because there are lots of informed people who have a lot to offer in terms of what direction this needs to go in. There are lots of bits and pieces of information and programs that are around government and exist. Of course, they need to be brought together under the proper umbrella and have some strategic direction. It is good to see that we are going to get a comprehensive study that will give the minister some ability to focus on where he needs to go in this particular area.

I would point out, as well; there are some serious issues that we are all aware of, for example, the claw back. If someone currently goes out who is receiving government funding from one source, and they get involved as a disabled person in the industry, they suffer claw back provisions. That is a hot and heavy item out there. Why do one if you lose on the other hand? That is a very serious issue which I am sure that the study will delve into.

There is also the issue, of course, of the job coaches. Many of these people have job coaches who go with them, and the issue of what these job coaches are paid has certainly been one of the problems, I understand. You cannot get people to go as job coaches in many areas at the minimum wage scale. So, no doubt, that will be considered.

It is a good start. We look forward to seeing the study in due course and seeing the direction that this new division will indeed take.

Thank you.

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

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

I, too, thank the minister for the advanced copy.

I am aware of some of the work that his department, even before the special division around disabilities was set up, how much his department under HRLE has been doing for people with disabilities.

Certainly, in consultation with the Independent Living Resource Centre, the minister could not be consulting with a better group. They are a group who are people with disabilities. There are others, of course, in the Province and nationally, that I am sure he will be consulting with as they do this study.

I am aware of the program that has been put in place with regard to employment. I know that people at ILRC are very, very pleased with that program. I encourage the minister to continue the good model of consultation that I think he shows to his colleagues in the government. There are many issues that will come out in the study that is going to be done, I am sure. One of them - and again, I know the minister knows this, I am sure - a big barrier to people with disabilities being employed is finding places of work that can accommodate disabilities. I think that is going to be a major area that the government needs to look at. It is a real need in this Province for us to look at employment equity, and that means big investment when we look at it.

I look forward to the study as well, because I would like to see how the government will deal with that kind of thing.

Thank you, 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.

My questions today are for the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, our office has been contacted by teachers who have raised concerns regarding fire safety in their schools. Teachers have pointed out to us that some of the schools in question may be operating under fire standards from the 1970s and 1980s.

I ask the minister: Now that you speak for the fire commissioner, can you tell me if schools are expected to comply with today's fire standards, or are they grandfathered in under previous codes and standards?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, there are 285 schools in Newfoundland and Labrador. Many of the schools were built, obviously, over the years, and were built according to the fire safety codes of that time. Any new schools are built according to today's fire safety codes, so there probably have been some schools that have been grandfathered in, which has been the accepted practice.

If there are fire safety concerns, there is a process that is followed by the schools to ensure that the schools are safe. There are daily inspections done, and daily inspection reports that are submitted to the principal. Then these daily reports are submitted to the school board on a monthly basis.

If there are any issues that are identified on a monthly basis to the school boards, there is a time frame built in as to when they go out and they do the work to address these issues.

Mr. Speaker, in saying that, we have also increased the budget for maintenance so that the school boards have the latitude to do the work that needs to be done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I will leave it at that. Hopefully, there is a supplementary question and I will be able to provide further information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, can the minister table for us, in the House of Assembly, a list of the schools in the Province that currently fall under existing codes and standards that are in place today, and those that have grandfathered in under codes that go back thirty years or more?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not have that information with me to table at this time, but I will certainly make an effort to be able to table that information here in the House.

I also want to speak about the importance of fire safety in our schools. We follow the daily, the monthly, process, the boards do, and they go out and through their maintenance budget they address fire safety issues.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, if there are any concerns that they feel they need an independent opinion, the boards can also call on the fire commissioner's office. I am certainly aware that there have been a number of times, when they wanted that independent outside decision, that they call in the fire commissioner's office and they get that information.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, this government has also - to show that we are concerned about the safety of our students - invested in laboratory safety equipment. We have had professional development for teachers in lab safety.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.

MS BURKE: The other thing we did, Mr. Speaker, we invested to make sure that the chemicals that have been left in our science labs for many, many, years have also been disposed of appropriately.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the fire commissioner could hold a public conference and verify what the minister is telling us here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the fire commissioner indicated that maintenance and facility managers at health care facilities who were responsible for fire and life safety issues did not know the codes relating to their facilities.

I ask the minister: In light of this information, can she tell me if the maintenance people in the schools, or whatever people in these schools are responsible for enforcing these codes, are any better prepared or any better trained?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the school boards are responsible for the operation of our schools and they have a process in place where they require daily reports. Then they are submitted to the principal, monthly they go into the board, and we have operations managers who look after these schools.

As I have indicated, at times when they felt they needed an independent outside opinion, they have certainly contacted the fire commissioner's office. I can think of one particular time when I was involved in some discussions and the fire commissioner's office was contacted to go and do an inspection for a school for us.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, there are also other layers of safety that we have in place in our schools, but it is so important to realize that we do these daily inspections because we are certainly concerned about the fire safety in our schools.

The boards have managers who oversee this process. They are responsible and they are accountable to ensure that this work is done, and is done in an accountable manner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was a very simple question. I will ask the minister again. The fire commissioner indicated that the people in hospitals who were responsible for carrying this out were not familiar with the codes, nor properly trained.

I ask the minister: Can she give me the assurance that those people in the schools responsible for this do have the training and know the codes under which they are supposed to enforce those regulations?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I have outlined the responsibilities of the board staff, and the process that they follow in order to make sure that any issues are brought to the attention of the school boards.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, on an annual basis each school is inspected by an outside agency that is contracted to go in and to check the systems that are in that school, whether it is the fire equipment, the fire hose, the alarms, the systems that are in place – on an annual basis – so it is not just dependent upon the board staff. We also have an independent company go in to do these evaluations and provide feedback to each and every school.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can the minister tell me who the private company is, how often they do the inspections, and are the reports submitted to the fire commissioner's office?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the work is done on an annual basis, and there are reports generated from that work.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know the names of the companies offhand, but it is certainly not private information; it certainly would be well known. If we are paying a company to go out and do assessments, that is certainly public information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have a situation here where concerns are being raised about the standards and codes that are being used in schools. We have the fire commissioner out there saying the fire and life safety process in place for public inspections in the Province is not working. In fact, I think his statement was that he was shocked by his own results.

I ask the minister: Why is she so insistent on not allowing the fire inspector to do his job and carry out the process of inspecting public buildings in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I outlined the process that the school boards have, who are accountable for the day-to-day operations of the school and the maintenance of these schools.

What is important here, Mr. Speaker, is that the fire commissioner has the right to inspect public buildings. The fire commissioner has the right to inspect each and every school in this Province. Under no circumstances would I, as Minister of Education, or the school boards, not allow the fire commissioner or the fire department's ability to go in and do the assessments that they deem are required.

Mr. Speaker, they have the right to do it. We have not eliminated that right.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Environment.

Minister, in February of this year, your department advised municipalities and communities who use incinerators that they would have to be closed down by December 31. I recall reading as well, I believe, an article in the Telegram whereby you gave some information to that effect as well, and what was intended to originally be a closure of 2010 was ramped up to December of this year, 2008.

I was just wondering if there will be any exemptions permitted to this order, to any communities in the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, as for our Waste Management Strategy that was announced in May, 2007 of last year, one of the requirements is that teepee incinerators no longer operate after December 31, 2008. There were approximately fifty teepee incinerators in operation. That number is now down to twenty-five, and we have committed to having a technical team in place to meet with all of these individual towns so that alternatives can be explored.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Maybe the minister could be more explicit. The question was: Are there going to be any exemptions? Because we know the order is out there, we know that communities are asking.

My question is: Will there be exemptions, and if there will be exemptions, have you figured out yet what is necessary to get an exemption?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, our goal in the Department of Environment and Conservation, and in co-operation with my colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, is to have these teepee incinerators eliminated by December 31, 2008. These are not good for the environment. They are burned at very low temperatures, and what comes out of these is certainly not good for people of this Province, in terms of dioxins and furans. We have committed to working with these towns to find alternatives, and our goal is to have all of them eliminated by December 31, 2008.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I think my question is fairly clear. We all understand the issue of the toxins and why we need the teepees closed.

My question is fairly straightforward: Are you prepared to grant any communities in this Province, who currently have teepees, an exemption? Have you made that decision yet, that exemptions may be granted?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the theme of recycling, if the hon. member is going to continue to recycle his question, I will continue to recycle the answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, our goal is to have teepee incinerators eliminated by December 31, 2008. We are down to twenty-five. We have made significant progress. Our goal, as I said, is to have zero by December 31, 2008.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Sometimes when the question is simple, but the person does not understand it and they do not want to give an answer, or maybe -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Maybe I will put it to the minister this way -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: I asked my questions of the Minister of Environment and we are not getting an answer. Well, minister, are you aware, as the Minister of the Department of the Environment, that the Department of Municipal Affairs has already, regardless of what you intend to do, your colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, has already given some communities an exemption, or is prepared to give an exemption. Are you aware of that? Are you aware of that, minister?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, the regulations around the elimination of teepee incinerators falls within the Department of Environment and Conservation and there have been no exemptions from our department.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Exactly my point. I am trying to show here that one minister of this government does not know what the other minister is doing. One is in charge of the environment; one is in charge of waste management.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of an e-mail sent by one of the government members, a backbencher, to a community, François, which says that that community will get an exemption. It came from the office of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Now which is it, minister? Is there going be exemptions under Environment who made the order? Does the Minister of Municipal Affairs know what he is doing? Can you tell us what is going on, because the communities subject to your order certainly do not know? Maybe you can clarify.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, for the fifth time, there will be no exemptions. We will continue -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: We are eight months away from this elimination date. We are very committed to working with these communities, both in co-operation with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Government Services, and my department. We are very committed to working with these groups to find alternatives.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The point I was trying to make here with these questions is that it is quite obvious that neither the minister - the Minister of Environment might know what she is doing but the Minister of Municipal Affairs, he had a meeting, Mr. Speaker. A meeting was held by the Minister of Municipal Affairs with the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune on April 8, this year, after the Minister of Environment gave the directions - after she said in The Telegram there will be no exemptions and that Minister of Municipal Affairs told the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune that there would be an exemption, and that was passed on to the community of François.

The question is: When will you people make up your mind what you are going to do about exemptions, and will you communicate that to other communities in this Province? When will you tell the communities what you are going to do?

SOME HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My mind is very made up. I cannot make it any clearer than I have been making it. What I will ask the hon. member opposite: Is he proposing that we continue to burn these potentially chemical toxins into the environment? If that is what he is proposing for his area, I think he should talk to his town.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is easy to tell when you strike a knot. They can give these fluff answers but when they get down to some details -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: I say to the minister again: Does the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune not know what she is talking about when she makes a statement to the Mayor of François that you will be getting an exemption, in writing? And I have had that confirmed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs on April 8.

Now, minister, all I am asking you is: When will the communities in this Province, who received your order in February, when will they know and what must they do to get an exemption, because somebody else, other than you, is handing out exemptions? Should they deal with you or Municipal Affairs?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, as Minister Responsible for Environment and Conservation and as minister responsible for this particular regulation, I am the only one who could grant exemptions, if I were to do so.

I did say in The Telegram that we will work with these communities. We are committed to working with these communities. We want to find a solution. We want to eliminate teepee incinerators. They are not good for the environment. They emit dioxins and furans which are not good for people, wildlife and so on and so forth. That is our goal and we are sticking to it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I heard that one before: That's my story and I am sticking to it.

My next question will be for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Minister, I do not mind tabling that by the way, confirming where it came from and who it went to. That is not a problem; that will be done. I can hand it to you personally or table it, whatever you prefer.

My question for the minister is, in the community of Ramea for example, about a year, a year-and-a-half ago, two years, they put in a new tepee incinerator which cost over $200,000, that this government paid 100 per cent for. All I am trying to determine here, on behalf of that community - because up to thirty minutes ago Mayor Lloyd Rossiter did not know anything about it.

Can there be an exemption for places like Ramea? We just spent over $200,000. You are on record here as saying that certain communities will get an exemption. What should (inaudible)?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, the health concerns of the people in Ramea are no different than the health concerns of the people (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, while a significant amount of money may have been spent into putting this incinerator in, the environmental cost of not eliminating it is much more, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is quite obvious that they do not want the Minister of Municipal Affairs to get on his feet. I don't know, maybe because he gives some answers - maybe - but I will ask him another one.

Minister, waste management, I take it, is in your area, even though it is all interlinked to environmental concerns and so on. You recently announced the appointment of three more persons to the Western Regional Waste Management Committee.

Port aux Basques, which is the single largest community in the Burgeo-LaPoile area, certainly from south of South Branch, which is the Member for Stephenville East, all of Codroy Valley, right on down to Grey River, there is only one community representative of that. The Town of Port aux Basques, which is the biggest community in the district, wants to be involved in waste management and wants to co-operate with government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose his question.

MR. PARSONS: They have been denied a seat on the board.

I ask the minister: With a community of such size and geographic significance, why would you refuse and not allow them to have a seat on a board when they want to be co-operative with you?

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

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

The Opposition House Leader is right; I did release a news release a week ago, putting a full complement in the Western Waste Management region.

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. gentleman is saying can be said by a significant number of other municipalities that are not represented on that area.

What I tried to do is try to get equal representation from small, medium and large municipalities, so that the input is even throughout, where the issues from the larger communities are identified, the issues from the medium-sized communities are identified, and the issues from the smaller communities are identified.

Mr. Speaker, every time I announce a management team in waste management, I have the same set of arguments: Why?

They are valid arguments, and I do not disagree with the member across the way.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to complete his answer.

MR. DENINE: I do not disagree with the hon. member that the Mayor of Port aux Basques is looking for it. They want to be part of it. I welcome them to be part of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, I have no problems with how many communities you have on the Waste Management Strategy. In fact, I would think the wise and prudent thing would be, the more bodies and heads we have involved, the more co-operation and the better we get it done.

My question of the minister is: Are you saying now, Minister - because it is a ten board seat, or seat board - is there any problem, Minister? Are you prepared to commit that the Town of Port aux Basques can have a representative on that board, or the Town of Stephenville who has also been left out, by the way?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared today to give that commitment.

What this committee is going to do, this committee is going to do the groundwork to make sure that the process is in place that they come to a host site that everyone can put their garbage in. Now, this is not going to be a dump; it is going to be an engineered landfill.

At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, when this committee is done, there will be an elected board and that member can run for election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You talk about one hand knowing what the other hand is doing.

After the Minister of Environment announced the closure of the teepees for December 31, the Minister of Municipal Affairs went out to the West Coast and told these communities: We are going to give you a consultant now.

Now, there is a meeting being held tonight in Burnt Islands by the West Coast Management Committee dealing with this consultant and how we are going to have input into it and get it up and running. Guess who is going to be the lead for that consultant study? Guess who they have asked? The Town of Port aux Basques.

Now, Minister, don't you see an inconsistency where you want the Town of Port aux Basques to lead your consultant to deal with waste management issues but you do not want the Town of Port aux Basques sitting on the board? Isn't there something foolish about that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. DENINE: I am not sure what the question is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: All I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman would ask me a question, I will answer it.

I am delighted that it is in Port aux Basques. I am delighted that they are over there having their consultations, because that is what the process is all about: listening to everyone who is going to be involved, to bring their ideas back so the consultant would have a better vision of what to recommend.

I applaud Port aux Basques for hosting that meeting, and that is done through the Western Regional Waste Management Committee, not through my office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

The federal government transferred $82.3 million for municipalities in this Province, money carved off the rebate on gas tax. Out of that, the provincial government carved off $22 million for themselves to spend within the department on waste management.

I ask the minister: How much of that money has now been spent to date, and what has it been spent on?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give you the exact amount, but if the member wants it I can give it to her. I do not know the exact number but there is work being done on the Avalon area with retrofit of Robin Hood Bay. There is a new site in the Central area that is being worked on now. There is money allocated to the Western Waste Management Committee to get their consultations up and running. This is all part of the whole picture.

I do not know the exact number. If she wants it, I can get it for her.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I will wait for the information to be tabled.

The mega-dump concept that the minister is promoting in his department, we know, will have a burden on certain municipalities in the Province. We know, Mr. Speaker, that there will be extra cost associated with the transport of garbage –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

MS JONES: - and tipping fees that will have to be charged at dump sites.

I ask the minister: In this time of rising gas prices, how much will it cost towns, extra - and let's take the Town of St. Lawrence, for example, who is expected to transport their garbage about 400 kilometres to Robin Hood Bay - what will the extra cost be to the residents in that community?

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, I want to correct one thing. We are not putting them into any more – when these three host sites – dumps. We are putting them into an engineered landfill, which is totally different. The idea of a dump, let's get that out of our mind.

Mr. Speaker, the idea of how much it is going to cost has not been determined yet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, the area in which she is looking at, the Burin Peninsula, they have a Regional Management Committee down there. They are looking at the waste management in that area. When they get their consulting done, then we will know.

Right now, I cannot give you an answer on how much it is going to cost, but what is going to happen is that the general principle is that the first 100 kilometres will be the responsibility of the municipality.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Environment and Conservation removed all doubt and announced that the government wants to cut the proposed Mealy Mountains National Park by 50 per cent. This proposal would leave some important watersheds and wildlife habitats unprotected. It includes taking the Eagle River section out of the national park and instead creating a provincial park. This decision is shameful considering that this Province only has approximately 1.5 per cent of its eco regions protected, well below the recommended 12 per cent standard.

Given this Province's poor record in preserving its provincial parks and poorer record in setting up wilderness areas, I ask the minister: Why is government proposing to take the Eagle River watershed out of the national park where it will have maximum protection and management by Parks Canada? It makes no sense.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government is very committed to having a national park in the Mealy Mountains area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, we are also very committed to ensuring that the conservation targets set out in the Park Purpose Statement are also met.

Mr. Speaker, the Steering Committee did meet last month. It is back up and running, it is on track, and it is meeting again next month as well. Also, there have been some discussions put forward. We are just one player at that Steering Committee. We did put items forward for discussion, Mr. Speaker, because it is very important –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

I ask members for their cooperation. The Chair has recognized the hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, it is very important that there be a balance between ecological integrity and the potential future development for the people of Labrador, and any decisions that are made have to be done in a sustainable manner. We put items on the table for discussion but at the end of the day the Steering Committee will put a proposal forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government also says it is committed to community consultation. Well, the community consultation and participation which is very, very important, that consultation process has said that they, too, are very concerned about the eco regions, and the balance for them is a national park.

The people of Labrador have made their wishes clear in surveys and public statements. They want the national park that would have the original boundaries as defined in a Parks Canada Feasibility Study in 2005. Why is this government ignoring the wishes of Labrador communities that have said they want the park with the boundaries as proposed to ensure that the sensitive areas you are concerned about will get maximum protection?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, it is very important that there be a balance between the ecological integrity and the items of ecological importance and the potential for future development for the people of Labrador, and decisions like these have to be made so that they are made in a sustainable manner. We are very committed to having a park in the Mealy Mountain area. We are very committed to protecting the Eagle River. Mr. Speaker, because we are interested in protecting areas within our Province, we propose having the Eagle River - or what we put on the table for discussion is that the Eagle River be protected provincially, because we are, as the member may know, proposing the waterway park for Main River. It would be really wonderful, because we have one on the Island, to have one in Labrador as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to raise a point of order, please. It will be under Standing Order 26, in relation to Oral Questions.

Last week, on Thursday, April 17, and Hansard will demonstrate, Mr. Speaker, that the Opposition House Leader asked myself, as the Minister of Justice, a number of questions in relation to Her Majesty's Penitentiary. On that date he stated: "According to the information we have, Mr. Speaker, approximately 70 per cent of the inmate population at the penitentiary at this time have a pre-diagnosed mental illness and drug addictions." He then referred to current policy at Her Majesty's Penitentiary. As Minister of Justice, I said to him, show me the documents or show me the facts. He said he would certainly provide with the info.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at the questions that were asked, and if you look at Standing Order 26, then for your own reference, and I am not going to go through this, Mr. Speaker, but if you look at Beauchesne, pages 120-122, it outlines what can and cannot be done in Oral Questions.

The Opposition House Leader not only breached the standing order, in terms of the comments made, the preambles, the length of the preamble. The commentary that we have seen here today, one would expect that these members, having been here for a while, would at least know basic principles of parliamentary procedure.

What then takes place, Mr. Speaker, is that on Tuesday, April 22 - the prison review was announced on April 18. There were no questions from the Opposition House Leader of me on April 22. Then he seeks to table documents, and he states: Nine different reports from different agencies, Correctional Services in Canada, and in this Province, from which I collected info. He provided those documents to me. Mr. Speaker, he would not accept them as tabling. Now, it just happens that they are printed. Remember, the initial comments were on April 17. It just happens they are printed on April 18 and April 22. Now I am not imputing any improper motive there, but it is suspicious, to say the least.

Then what happens, Mr. Speaker, I go to the documents. There are no documents that relate to this Province. They relate to Correctional Services of Canada, 2001 discussion paper; cbc.ca; 2002, US Bureau of Justice statistics; 1991, Canadian Journal of Criminology.

What happens, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you, is whether intentionally or inadvertently, it was an attempt to mislead this hon. House by putting this kind of documents - by referring to them and then not having them to back it up.

Under the Oral Questions, Mr. Speaker, if I could ask you to look at page 20, of the Standing Order 26, "In putting any oral question, no argument or opinion is to be offered nor any facts stated except so far as may be necessary to explain the same." Certainly, as much as that rule is breached on a daily basis by the Opposition House Leaders, I do not want to pick on them too much. There are only a couple of them over there, but, Mr. Speaker, there have to be rules and you cannot have the Opposition House Leader misleading this hon. House and impugning improper statements.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, to that point of order?

MR. PARSONS: Yes.

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

MR. PARSONS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker –

MR. KENNEDY: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Maybe the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker - first of all, I did not say point of order. I said to the point of order, which I believe it is my right in this House to speak to a point of order if the Chair permits. The Chair has permitted, I understand, me to speak to the point of order.

First of all, the comment I would make is, I have been in this House now nine years or so. That is the first time in the nine years I have been here that anyone has ever accused me or dared accuse me of trying to mislead this House or anyone in it. Now maybe we had Inquiries 101 last week, and I guess this is legislative protocol and procedures 101, complements of the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, I asked questions last week in this House based upon information that was provided to me by staffers in our office, researchers. In response to the question, the Minister of Justice said to me: Where are you getting your facts? I went back to the staffer who had given me the information in the office and said: What information did you rely upon in order to help me compile the questions that I just put to the Minister of Justice today?

The information that I put in a purple folder and stood here and transported to the Minister of Justice a few days ago was that information which that staffer printed off and gave to me so that I could present it here in the House and give it to the minister. Now, to take that and stretch it to say that I deliberately, maliciously tried to mislead this House, that is overstepping it. That is overstepping it. Now, if I had some improper information, I have no problem with that. It would not be the first time in my life that I said something that I relied on improper information. I would be the first to stand up and say that, because I am not perfect. But there is a big -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude his answer, his response.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, and it is very important, Mr. Speaker, that I be allowed to conclude.

Someone here has challenged and said that I deliberately misled this House, and that is a very serious allegation. If anyone has been innocently misled, that is one thing, but to stand up here and say that I deliberately misled anyone, based upon information that I had, is absolutely improper.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has entertained enough -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation. The Chair has heard the response, the point of order as being raised by the Minister of Justice and the response by the Opposition House Leader.

I did not hear the Minister of Justice say anybody deliberately misled anybody here. If Hansard will show that, or if the broadcasting will show it, then I will respond to that after.

Before the Forty-Sixth General Assembly sat, the Speaker met with the Government House Leader and he met with the Opposition House Leader and the Leader of the third party. It was agreed at that time that we would use forty-five seconds as a guideline to ask questions and give answers.

The point raised by the hon. Minister of Justice, I guess it is a fine point where it says, "In putting any oral question, no argument or opinion is to be offered nor any facts stated except so far as may be necessary to explain the same." That is a pretty broad statement, I say to members.

There is certainly no point of order. It is a point of information that is put forward. If hon. members feel that forty-five seconds is to long to ask a question or to answer a question, then I ask you to speak with me and we will have it changed.

Presenting Reports by Standing or Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call for second reading debate, Order 7, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, Bill 21, standing in the name of the Minister of Government Services.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act." (Bill 21)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to get up in this hon. House today in regards to speaking to this Bill 21 which will amend the Pension Benefits Act.

Before I get into the aspects of the bill, one of the most important aspects of a person's life as they age is their benefit of having a pension that they would have when they retire to get older and enjoy life to the fullest once their work life is over. So, it is very, very important, as the minister responsible for my department, to make sure that we protect the employees in regard to that pension plan, in its fullest, all the way along until their eventual retirement. That is what this amendment does, Mr. Speaker. It ensures the protection of pension plans for workers all over this Province.

There is a need to improve this protection by amending the Pension Benefits Act, and to ensure - and what this amendment does is ensure that funding of deficits in pension plan windups is fully funded; because, if it is not fully funded thus it decreases the benefits to the employee. The benefits that they expected in the front end when they started paying into the pension plan would not be there at the end, once they retire.

Also, you know, the company may very well want to wind up a pension even though the company is not going out of business, or it would wind up a pension plan when it is going out of business. So, this protects this in all aspects; however, under the current legislation, when a plan winds up before the end of a five year period, the employer is only required to fund the amount owing up to the windup date. So, in addition, any new deficits identified at the windup date are not required to be funded.

This would mean that plan members would have their benefits reduced. It could be reduced by a minimal amount, but it certainly could be reduced by a severe amount. Certainly, that would not be in the best interest of the employee; nor would it be what they would expect at the end of their pension and their work life. Certainly, this is what this is.

Under the Department of Government Services now, and under the Pension Benefits Act, it requires that a pension plan have an actuarial validation report completed at least every three years to assess the funding position of the plan, on both a going concern as well as a solvency basis.

If there is a solvency deficit, the pension plan sponsor is now required to fund that deficit over a five year period. That is what this amendment will do, thus certainly ensuring that the employee is certainly protected over the lifetime of the pension and certainly at the end.

The other thing that I might say, too, Mr. Speaker, in regard to this pension plan, is that most other provinces across the nation have similar legislation, and changing our legislation will ensure pension plans in this Province for employees whose company operates in more than one jurisdiction will receive the same level of funding on plan windup as those in jurisdictions that already have similar requirements.

This amendment, I see as a positive step that provides greater protection for employees when there is a deficit on windup of a pension plan.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will finish up and I welcome any comments by my hon. members across the House, in the Opposition, and I will try to answer any questions that they may have.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words.

This, of course, is a Pension Benefits Act and no doubt it is a money bill, I guess. We are talking about somebody's money, whether it is this provincial government's money or the pensioners' money –

MS JONES: The taxpayers.

MR. PARSONS: - the taxpayers' money, and people who must hold money in a fund to make sure that once the pension plan, of course, or the person who hopes to draw their pension, that there is money in the fund to look after them.

Because it is a money bill, of course, it gives members an opportunity, pretty wide latitude of money issues and financial issues, to discuss a number of –

AN HON. MEMBER: That is stretching it.

MR. PARSONS: Members opposite say it is a stretch. I guess you might have to wait until you hear what I have to say, unless you would like to predetermine what I have to say now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

MR. PARSONS: I was pretty good yesterday at predicting what the Minister of Finance was going to say in response to my private member's motion. I was spot on, but I do not know if the members over there have ESP or mind reading abilities or what, but to suggest that this member should not talk because they know what I am going to say already and it is not related, I think that is a bit of a stretch.

I am sure the Speaker will do that, if it is not related, or maybe the Speaker could give us some direction. Maybe it is not a money bill. Maybe it is a straight administrative bill that deals with pensions, but I would think that it talks about pensions, private pensions, and it is money. Money is in a pension fund, and this government is going to pass a law which orders certain people –

MR. O'BRIEN: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: It may be private money, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Government Services says it is a private pension fund. Maybe so, but this government is going to pass a law that dictates a certain amendment to the Pension Benefits Act of 1997.

Regardless of who owns the money, or whose pension fund it is, this government is passing a piece of legislation that is dealing with, in this particular case, what money must be left in a pot to ensure people that there is solvency there, or enough money left there to pay the people who paid the pension in.

I think that is a money bill. You can extrapolate that any way you want; I think that is a money bill. Anybody in this Province who does not believe that a pension deals with a money bill, I do not know what it deals with. It talks about people's livelihoods and their ability to look after themselves and have some dollars, money, in their pocket when they retire.

Now, hopefully we have established the basis of it being a money bill, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's see what you have to say.

MR. PARSONS: Well, I was going to talk about other money issues. For example, there are lots of money issues that people want to make sure that they know about and they are properly informed about. If I get shut down on this opportunity, I am sure there will be another opportunity that I will get to discuss it on, but it leads with some of the money issues.

I raised questions today of the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Municipal Affairs. That is a very serious money issue. We have one issue - and it is serious environmental issue, by the way, very serious. Anybody who does not take the teepee situation in this Province, where we dispose of our waste, as a serious issue, we are seriously missing the boat. I have no problems whatsoever with the Minister of Environment saying that we have to do something about the teepee incinerators, and I think every person in this Province would agree with that. We need to do something about it. The question is how we get there.

My question today, because it talks about money, somebody in this government has directed that a bunch of people, a bunch of communities in this Province, some municipalities, some local service districts, have to shut down their teepees come December 1. Now, the question I was asked, I went out during our Easter break and I visited every community in my district and held meetings with the community leaders, and every single one, bar none, asked me: Mr. Parsons, how are we going to deal with that order, because it impacts us in our pocket book? If we close the teepee on December 31, what are we going to do with our garbage?

Now that was the question and I did not have an answer for them, quite frankly. I did not have an answer. The Mayor of Ramea provided me with the letter from the Department of Environment dated the eighteenth. Very straightforward, I think it was only like a two or three sentence letter that said, just putting you on notice.

It did not come directly from the minister. It came from some official in the minister's office and said, just to give you notice and heads-up that as of December 31 this year, 2008, you are shutting down your incinerator.

That was it, pretty straightforward. It didn't say anything about what your options might be. It didn't say, well, contact anybody in Municipal Affairs and figure out what you are going to do with your waste, or we are going to do this or we are going to do that. So it was a logical question for these people to ask: What are we going to do with our waste?

I took it upon myself to do some inquiring. What are they going to do with the waste? The councils on the West Coast, I believe Mr. Fenwick in the Port au Port area – I forget the name of the community right now that he is the mayor of. It is a local service district and he is the head, I understand, of the council there. He spearheaded a meeting. I know the Mayor of Burgeo was there, a whole bunch of councillors from the West Coast, and mayors, and they did not have any answers. Between them, none of them had any answers and they needed some answers.

I do believe Mr. Gilbert Smart, who is the Chair of the Western Region Waste Management Committee, met with them and said, yes, we have a serious issue here. We know the order is out there, but we cannot tell you right now what to do with your waste after December 31.

That raised the question: Where is the money going to come from? What money is involved in order for these communities - what are the going to do with their waste, and what is it going to cost?

That is how this question started. The Mayor of Ramea, for example, asked me: Do you think it is possible that we might get an exemption? Because it was only two years ago, he said, that our incinerator was no longer usable, functional. We went to government and, in conjunction with government, they decided that the only option, or the best option, we had a couple of years ago was to build a new one.

They were working on a Waste Management Strategy for the western portion of the Province, and all of the Province indeed, and hopefully some option would come out of it, but in the meantime let's put your new incinerator in place.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador gave the community of Ramea 100 per cent financing to do that. It was a need, it had to be dealt with, and the government came to the fore and dealt with it. Now, nobody disagrees with that. Sometimes there are not readily available solutions; you have to do those things.

Here they were saying – a simple question - we just made this massive investment, the government did, of $200,000. We don't have an option as to how we are going to truck our garbage off in Ramea. We don't know the cost of it, so is it possible to get an exemption?

Now that is a pretty straightforward question, but nobody was saying if an exemption was possible. In fact, when I read the news media - and I have a copy here of the February 19 article where the minister was interviewed by the Telegram. These closures were to take place in 2010, so the question of the Telegram was - because they had gotten some records through freedom of information - they said: Based on the briefing notes we got through FOI, it appears that there might be some possibility of isolated communities getting an exemption.

The minister quite adamantly said – "Not so, says Johnson." is the quote. Her quote is, "There have been no delays. Incinerators have closed as scheduled," she said, indicating that the remaining incinerators "will close the end of this year."

That was February. The order went out in February. She told the media in February that they were going to close. Yet, the questions remain: what to do, and were there exemptions?

That is why I ask the Minister of Environment today, who issued that order: Can anybody get an exemption?

The minister says no, no exemptions. It is on the record, it is done. It closed December 31.

That didn't square with some other information I had, because there is another community in this Province called François, on the South Coast, which we had been told had been given an exemption.

I said no, there has to be some confusion here. The minister says it is not closing, the minister made the order, so you are not going to have your incinerator in François after December 31. They are not going to make exceptions for François.

That is a pretty straightforward question. The minister again today confirmed: no exemptions, that is it, not on, tepees are closing.

My question, then, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, was: If that is the case, why does the person who heads up the local service district, or used to head it up, in François, why do they think they are getting an exemption?

Lo and behold, there is an e-mail dated April 8, this year, where the MHA for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, e-mailed this person in François and said: I met with the minister this morning - uses his name, Minister Denine - you will be getting an exemption.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with the exemption, and I am not saying that government should not give an exemption to some other communities. My question was directed to: Did you, Minister Denine, do this? Does the MHA for that district have good, solid information that she conveyed on to those people in François?

It is one or the other. Either the MHA does not know what she is talking about or she misunderstood what the minister told her, which means she automatically or inadvertently misled the people of François. It is either that or else the minister did tell her, in which case then the question is raised: Well, what is the Minister of Municipal Affairs doing, giving an exemption? Because there is only one minister, as I understand, who can give the exemption from shutting down the incinerator, and that is the Minister of Environment, and she confirmed that there are no exemptions.

It is not rocket science. My questions were directed to: We know the order is there. We know this community has been told that. Does one minister talk to the other minister?

I don't say that facetiously. We have had indications of ministers who have not read their briefing notes until months after getting into a department. We have had ministers who have said: We don't answer questions because we weren't asked.

Don't get upset with people because we asked simple questions that we cannot get answers to. There are lots of precedents – in the last few weeks even – as to why people question the information, or lack thereof sometimes, and guidance from this government.

The government is there to pat themselves on the back, as they should when you do something good, and I am all for that. If you do something good, pat yourself on the back, but all we are asking here - and the members opposite today, during Question Period, they got upset because we asked a question, as if we are trying to embarrass someone. Here we are, we are asking for information. If we write a letter to some ministers, we get told, go to Access To Information, and we cannot get it. Yet, we get in the House here and we ask a question, can we get information? We get half answers. We get all kinds of blarney and we do not get any straightforward; a simple thing.

I asked the Minister of Environment today, four times, do you intend to give any exemptions? Now, to me, there are only three possible answers to that. There are three possible answers, yes, no, or I do not know. That is pretty simple. But no, sir, we did not get a straightforward answer; did not get a straightforward answer.

So I say to the ministers, respectfully, all we are asking is for a straight answer. Get your act together, and if you are going to give an exemption, or you would consider giving an exemption, then there is another piece of information that we would like to have. For example, what is the criteria going to be for an exemption? I can understand if the minister says, we are going to give an exemption to François, we are going to give an exemption to Grey River, because you people are isolated communities. I have no problem with that. That is a legitimate isolation issue, but then the question arises, what about other communities? How do you define isolation?

For example, I have a community in Rose Blanche. Does Rose Blanche qualify? Does Fogo Island qualify? I mean, the community of Fogo Island is connected by a ferry, but a fairly large number of communities on that island, Fogo Island, are they going to get an exemption? Instead of being upfront and saying: boys, we have not figured it out. We get all kinds of diversionary, evasive answers.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs would not even come to his feet and confirm whether that was a true statement or not, that he made to the MHA. There would not be half the trouble if you just openly gave the answers, and that is all we were asking for. It is like the question I asked, again a money question about the cost of a consultant. The order was made by Environment to close down. After that order got made, Municipal Affairs steps in and says we are going to appoint a consultant to figure out the options.

Now, I do not know about anybody else's thinking, but usually if you are going to give an order you think of the ramifications it might have before you give it. That is part of the planning process. Who are we impacting by this order? Have we consulted with them? Do we need to consult with them? What are the pros and what are cons and the directive that we are going to give? That is usually, I understand, a prudent approach to governance. But, what do we have here? We had the order out, we had the minister out saying it stands, there are no exceptions and then we get the Minister of Municipal Affairs saying we are going to get a consultant in now and figure out what options we have for you people who have teepees. Now, I beg to differ again. It might be called small potatoes, but that begs the question: Why wasn't that consultation done before the Minister of Environment decided to shut them down? Why did every community who is impacted by it be left in the lurch and have these concerns? What are we going to do after December 31 with our garbage?

So, now we have money being spent by the Department of Municipal Affairs to go out to do a study to determine what the options are for those communities that have to shut down. Yet, again, we asked a simple question: Who should these people go to, these communities? Waste management, we know, falls under Municipal Affairs; environmental concerns and incinerators fall under the Minister of Environment. Yet, one does not seem to know what the other one is doing. In order to properly, I would suggest, assist the people and guide them as to what they do, give them as much information as you can and give them some guidance as to how they should unravel this issue. But, that is not how it has been handled. This government and this department have hundreds and hundreds of employees. Surely, somebody can put the package of information together and explain to these communities who says what and how we can go about doing this.

That leads me to the question of consultation and impact and exchange of ideas. That is the issue of the Town of Port aux Basques. Yes, it is in my bailiwick. Yes, I have an obligation to raise it because it is a major concern out there. We have everywhere, from the Codroy Valley, which is in Stephenville East, down to Grey River, the end of my district in Burgeo & LaPoile. There is only one representative from the Town of Burnt Islands, and I understand that that individual does not know, only slightly, he only came on council in Burnt Islands a little while ago, and asked to be put on the committee. He asked to go on that committee, the waste management for the Western region, and he got on there. Great for him, good stuff.

That is a funny thing, because the Town of Port aux Basques has been asking for two years to get on the committee. The mayor says, what is going on? We are in Port aux Basques, the bigger community he says. In fact, Port aux Basques currently, and for the last number of months, have been taking all the garbage from down the coast from all these communities and seeing that it is looked after in their incinerator. Yet, they cannot get a member on this board? What is the magic in having a ten person board? Or maybe a better way to put it is: What is the problem with having an eleven person board? This is a government that is open and accountable and accessible and yet one of the major communities in a region who wants to get involved and get on board and play a positive role, which they have always done, is told no.

I understand the Town of Stephenville, a fairly large enterprise, it is the same thing. They cannot get on board and do not have a member. I have no problem with the explanation that the minister gave saying we want input from smaller communities but surely that does not remove or ought not to remove the input of medium-sized communities. The idea is to make a waste management strategy that is eventually going to work for everybody's benefit. How do you ever get the train rolling in the right direction and everybody pulling on the lines at the same time when you have automatically excluded somebody who wants to be involved?

The Minister of Human Resources here today got up and gave a ministerial statement concerning disabled persons. He used the word inclusive, and he is. Other departments and agencies of the government should be equally inclusive, but we do not have that. We have an exclusive situation. A town that wants to get involved, that represents a significant portion of the population, that has the vast majority of the garbage to be dealt with and waste to be dealt with is told: no, you can't play a role. Now, I do not understand that. There are only a few reasons that I can contemplate that might ever exist why you would exclude anyone. Are they stupid? Is there nobody in the Town of Port aux Basques capable of fulfilling a role on that board to help out? I do not think so. Are they troublemakers? I do not think so. Anybody who knows Mayor Button and his council, they are pretty easygoing people. I don't know if they ever caused a ripple for any administration, this one or the prior ones; not that sort of individual. In fact, I spoke to him this morning again because we knew about this issue when we saw the release come out that they put three new people on two days ago, and Mayor Button said: What is going on? He is on the Federation of Municipalities. I believe it is the urban committee of the Federation of Municipalities. He went to a meeting back in February with Minister Denine and the Deputy Minister and that was one of the issues discussed at that meeting: Can we put a member on the Western Region Waste Management Board?

Mr. Button tells me this morning – because I went back and confirmed it. I went to the minister yesterday. I would not raise this issue publicly nor did Mayor Button want me to raise the issue publicly without asking the minister. He said: Mr. Parsons, would you remind Minister Denine that we had that meeting back in February? And he told me, when we made that request – in fact, he was going out the door when I said: Now, Minister, you have heard our concerns? He said: I have heard you and it will be dealt with.

Now, he said, maybe I am missing something, but when a minister tells me, I have heard you and it is going to be dealt with, I had a pretty good indication that I was going to have somebody on the board. Now, he said, I think I would be foolhardy if I were to suggest that Minister Denine didn't commit something to me. He said: I never raised the issue with him anymore after February because I knew it was being looked after, as he said.

There were also indications from other people in Municipal Affairs on the West Coast to the Town of Port aux Basques that it was being looked after and would be dealt with. In fact, the Town of Port aux Basques submitted a name to be on the board. There was no indication whatsoever that it would not be looked after. Lo and behold, out comes the press release.

Now, the minister talks about representation from small communities. You take the Port au Port region, for example, and the Bay St. George region. We have a Member from Port au Port on the board; fine and dandy, he should be there. We have a member from Bay St. George South, we have a member there from Stephenville Crossing, and we have a member there from Gillams. We have four smaller communities in the Bay St. George region represented on that board. Yet, we don't have Stephenville on there, which is smack dab in the middle of all of them, has the biggest population and the biggest pile of waste. No, Stephenville doesn't have a member on the board.

The same thing out the other way, you have Cape Ray, Port aux Basques, Fox Roost-Margaree, Isle aux Morts, Burnt Islands, Rose Blanche, LaPoile, Grand Bruit, Ramea, Burgeo, Grey River, and the list goes on. You have one member from Burnt Islands and nobody from the Codroy Valley. If you want to get into the names up in the Codroy Valley in terms of the size of the communities, there is a whole pile. There is O'Regans, there is Codroy, there is St. Andrews, there is South Branch, and the list goes on, Doyles, Upper Ferry. Yet, we do not get a member from Port aux Basques, after the minister saying what he said to the mayor. I don't understand. That is not openness and that is not accountability, and that is not inclusive behaviour.

I didn't hear an answer here today from the minister as to why it wasn't possible. That is all we are asking, again. If you have some reason for limiting the size of that board in the Western Region to ten, what is it? What is the harm of having fifteen there, if they show the interest and want to get involved?

We are trying to tackle a major problem in this Province, waste management. As the Minister of Innovation and Trade said, it first hit the table back in 2002. We have been ever since then, six years, trying to unravel it. We have not made a lot of headway, and now we have a situation where communities who want to get involved and help out are being told no. I do not understand it. That is not an inclusive government.

When you want to extrapolate non-inclusive, non-open, non-transparent, it all fits in the same mesh, then. I do not think I asked any questions today of the Minister of Environment or the Minister of Municipal Affairs that were unfair in that context. Why did you make the order before you had the options? Why are you not letting major towns in the area contribute their ideas and their knowledge and support? Are there going to be any exceptions to the order that you made? That is pretty straightforward stuff. That is not rocket science in anybody's book.

Yet, we had a minister stand up four times and evade the question. We had another minister who would not get on his feet and even answer the question that I asked. That is openness and that is accountability and that is transparency?

Have no fear. The people of this Province, whatever we all might be, there is nobody blind and there is nobody going to accept that as a fair answer, what happened here today - nobody.

People will make their own judgments as to who is open and who is accountable. This was a prime example here today of two ministers, and one did not know what the other one was doing. Neither knew what the other was doing, and neither was prepared to give any straightforward, straight-shooting answers here.

I did not ask them complicated, confidential information. I did not ask them to tell me how much the budget is for, or where you are going to spend the budget. I did not even ask: When is the Budget coming down? - which some people are wondering. Yet, we did not get an answer. These are money issues that impact this Province, and there are still no answers to them.

The question, too, talking about the consultant study that is being done, it is my understanding – and again the minister can correct me – it is my understanding that this consultant that they are now going to hire, to go figure out what the options are, which is costing some money - we do not know how much, but it is costing some money – there is going to be a meeting tonight, I understand, in the Town of Burnt Islands, with the representatives on the waste management board that are there. The Town of Port aux Basques has been invited to come to that meeting and, in fact, they are going to be expected to play a major role in helping with setting up, contributing to and implementing whatever options are available for waste management in Western Newfoundland.

So they are good enough to help out and do it all, but they are not good enough to sit on the board. Quite frankly, I do not know what answer to tell them back, because the minister will not tell me why they cannot be on the board. He cannot tell me that having eleven there is going to destroy the effectiveness of the board. He has not given me any reason that they are troublemakers and upstarts who are not going to contribute. So what do I tell the people, or what does anyone tell the good people of Port aux Basques, why you cannot have a member on the board? They are not of the right political stripe? I hope that is not the reason. I would like to think that is not the reason, because they have a job to do as municipal politicians, and the rest of us have jobs to do as MHAs, and I would certainly hope that is not the reason, but I cannot see any other reason, and that is the seriousness of this. That is why these people are genuinely, seriously concerned out there, that you cannot be asked, on the one hand, to step up and do your duty and help out, and be co-operative, and work with us, on the one hand, and then you get this kick in the teeth on the other hand - without an explanation, by the way.

I think they are due an explanation. In fact, I do not think it behooves the Minister of Municipal Affairs not to put them on there. Simply because somebody raises an issue, if it is justified, and a decision that has been made ought to be reversed, it ought to be reversed because it is just to reverse it. Rather than getting your back up and saying, oh you did this, and you did that, and Parsons came in and complained, and therefore you are not getting a member on the board, let's just see what kind of gumption this minister has, and let's see how right and proper he can be. Because, now that the concern has been brought to his attention and there is no good reason to exclude them, why wouldn't he include them?

I think it is the honourable thing to do, and I think this minister is an honourable person, and I think it will save everybody - the minister, all of his officials on the West Coast, all of his staff who have to work every day, not only on the waste management issue but on every other issue, and there are hundreds and hundreds of issues that the town has to deal with on a ongoing basis with the department. It puts a bad taste in their mouth when they feel that all of a sudden something has gone off the rails for no good reason.

If I were the minister when it was brought to my attention, I would have said: My, we made a mistake; we have to go back and look at this.

There was no such thing as let's go back and look at it and see what is the rights or the wrongs or it – no, done. That is not good enough. I would like to think that part of being open and part of being accountable is that you listen. If something is wrong, you fix it. If it is not right, you make it right.

One of the persons I spoke to, for example, the brother of the Member for Bellevue, is the head of the Local Service District of Grey River. I sat down in his home for an hour during the Easter break. He had the same concerns; we cannot get any answers. A sincere gentleman, concerned about his community, wants to know an answer.

That is all we are asking for. Where are the answers? What are the people in Grey River going to do with their garbage? They shut down their teepee on December 31. By the way, for anybody who does not know the geography, they are talking about this mega-dump for the West Coast being in Wild Cove, Bay of Islands. That is up around Corner Brook, for those who are not familiar with the geography.

Right now, as it stands, the plan is to put a mega-dump in Wild Cove, Bay of Islands, but the people have been told to get rid of their incinerators come December 31. So, all of the people of Grey River, come January 1, have to start stockpiling their garbage in their community. When they get so much of it stockpiled, whatever, in a dumpster or whatever they have to put it in - and they do not know what they have to put it in because they do no know environmentally what is acceptable and safe for that, either, for storage of refuge and garbage - then it has to be shipped out, not trucked out, has to be shipped out on a boat to Burgeo or to Ramea - I would think to Burgeo - where it is going to hook up with some land line.

There is cost with storing it in Grey River, the dumpsters. There is a cost to shipping it out on the boat - and, by the way, what kind of boat? Because there is some concern: is it environmentally proper to ship garbage that you would have stockpiled in Grey River for whatever, a week or two weeks, is it proper, under the environmental regulations, to ship that out on the public ferry service?

They do not even know the answer to that yet. They might have to go get some private contractor or some other way to ship it out. We do not even know if we can put it on the ferry, the provincially funded subsidized ferry that services Grey River to Burgeo. We do not know if that can be dealt with yet. That is another question they do not know.

Then they get it up to Burgeo. Now, there are 154 kilometres from Burgeo up to the head of the Trans-Canada, 154 kilometres. They have to get it up there. They have to get from the head of the Trans-Canada into Corner Brook, which is another forty minute drive, and then they have to get it to Wild Cove. For the information of the people in Municipal Affairs, the community of Grey River, which is a local service district, they do not have a truck. They do not have any municipal employees to look after all of this trucking. They do not know what they are going to do with it. We will save it on the wharf for you in a dumpster, but what happens to it after that? We do not have any money to pay for that. We do not have any tax base in Grey River.

If you do not have answers to some of these straightforward questions to give to these people, can you imagine what is going to happen? Where is it going to be stockpiled and where is the garbage going to go? If it does not get burnt in the incinerator I would suggest there will be a lot of burning going on in back gardens. Where does that get us? You cannot avoid the question.

If we have made the decision to go down the road of getting rid of the teepees, we have to take the responsibility of putting the directions, the options and the help in place for these people. If they are going to do it on a regional basis between Ramea, Grey River, François, Burgeo, and have some unified system to do it, they need to know the answers to that stuff. All we are saying is the answers do not exist right now, and until the answers are found, why would you order those teepees shut down? I would have thought that you would not have put the cart before the horse, Mr. Speaker. I would have thought that you would have some options gone to these people to figure that out, and those figuring out pieces just have not been done.

In fact, not only everybody on this side is opposed and thinks that the waste management strategy leaves some things to be desired, the former Mayor of Mount Pearl - he is currently a member in this House. I will not say his name. It is not parliamentary acceptable, but the Member for Mount Pearl, the former Mayor of Mount Pearl, not the one who is currently the Minister of Municipal Affairs, but the most recent, former Mayor of Mount Pearl, who replaced the former Speaker of the House, he gave a piece in October, 2006. He wrote a story to The Telegram. He was the subject of The Telegram. He wrote a story to The Telegram, Mr. Speaker. In his case, they were opposed to St. John's having all the control of the waste management piece. Why should St. John's have all the representation? A big two-page story, actually. It took up all The Telegram that day.

So, it is not only this member who has questions, and it is not only today that the questions arose. Those questions have been on the go for some time and they are legitimate questions. The former Mayor of Mount Pearl asked the questions legitimately, as he should have. I think he made the point and he made it well, and it is the same point we are trying to make, is that this is an evolving strategy that you do not have all the answers to right now but you need as many people as you can to work together, to co-operate, to get to where you need to go. He was questioning the make up of boards at that time, and that is all that is happening on the West Coast. They are questioning the makeup of the boards and how many people you should and ought to have involved, and they are looking for answers.

In fact, Mr. Fenwick, who was a former member of this House, who heads up one of the local service districts on the West Coast - I mean, this is not just coming from this member and it is not only coming from the Town of Port aux Basques or the Town of Burgeo or the community of Grey River. There is a story in The Western Star dealing with the environment, and the mayor - he is the Mayor of Cape St. George, Mr. Fenwick. He says: hiring a consultant is not enough. Now this is the consultant that I referred to when I said the minister - he appointed a consultant.

MR. DENINE: We got to start somewhere, boy.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, I say to the minister, that is a very good comment from the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased that the minister now is prepared to give us his comments from the peanut gallery because I asked him straightforward questions in this House today and he would not come to his feet on some of them. He would not rise to his feet. His comment just now, and it is very telling, talking about appointing a consultant. He has obviously missed the point. He says you have to start somewhere. Wow! Well, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point that I have been up here preaching about for the last hour. That is what my questions were all about in Question Period. Why did you appoint a consultant? He tells us now: It is because we got to start somewhere.

Well, my question to the minister again is, and I would love to hear his answer back again: Why did you not appoint the consultant to figure out the options before the Minister of Environment went out and told them all to shut down? Now, that is a pretty straightforward question. You had to start somewhere, as you say. Why didn't you start with that piece before the order went out to shut them down? Why do we now have this same minister who says we got to start somewhere? He is obviously aware of the shutdown order because according to the MHA for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, he told her on April 8: yes, we are going to give some exemptions to that. We are going to allow some exemptions to that.

MR. DENINE: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Well, I have information. Now, maybe the information - the minister says I do not know what I am talking about. Well, minister, the e-mail that I got and the copy that I am going to give to you speaks for itself. The staff member of the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune says they spoke with you and there is going to be an exemption in the case of François. Now that is black on white, minister.

I say to you, you ought to have started somewhere with your consultations and you ought to have started before the Minister of Environment is rushing off to shut things down and cause people all kinds of grief. That is all this is about. Nobody here disagrees with getting rid of teepees. Nobody disagrees with having the consultants. Nobody disagrees that you should help these people financially if you have to, but the question is, how do we get there? That is all that has been asked here. Yet, what do you get met with when you try to ask some straightforward questions and get some answers? You get a runaround, and that makes it tougher.

There is nobody in this House who has not made a mistake. I am amongst them lots of times. Sometimes, if you do something that you need to look back and say: Whoa, maybe I did not handle that right. Maybe I did not handle that right. Maybe there is a way to fix this. Maybe I did screw that up a little bit. People are understanding. People are not going to condemn you because you happened to go down a wrong road before you realized it. Maybe it is not even a wrong road. Maybe I am on the wrong road because I do not have the full information. I can only speak from what I know and the people who I have contacted. I did not get up here and create any of this.

When I say I spoke to the Mayor of Ramea, I spoke to him. I spoke to the Mayor of Burgeo. I spoke to the head of the local service district in Grey River. I spoke to the Mayor of Port aux Basques. I can only tell you based on the facts that I have. Now, if there is something wrong with that, clarify it. We do not need to make a big issue out of this, but you tend to force it to be a big issue when you get evasive. Most of these questions that we ask could be answered if somebody says: Yes, okay, we understand you. Here is why we did it. All I got from the minister on the board issue was: No, got ten, that is it, done. That is it, done. Are there going to be exemptions? We still don't have straight answer on that one.

Now, I did not raise the exemption issue from the closures because I thought about it. I did not raise that. The Mayor of Ramea asked me that: Do you think we can get an exemption?

In fact, I never even had an answer until this other document surfaced, when one community got it, apparently. So I said, well, if that is the case, I guess we will all get it, if you justify it. I am just asking now, where the confusion is coming from, that is all. It just makes the job so much tougher when it seems like you are trying to walk uphill all the time to get these answers when you need not be walking uphill. We should be on the level with each other. We should be asking questions, and we should be allowed to get some answers.

On Bill 21, Mr. Speaker, which, as I say, is a money bill, again I think this is a good piece of legislation. We will be supporting this, absolutely; because, from what I understand, when that happened was, in a lot of the pension funds in days gone past they had a surplus. We did not just recognize it here, of course, it happened all over Canada, and all over North America, that there were some hard times, and the valuations of these – they called it the perfect storm, I believe, in the pension industry, is what one individual, Julie Dickson, who is the Superintendent of Financial Institutions of Canada, said. She said: the perfect storm has hit the pension sector over the last few years. New actuarial rules which reflect increased life expectancy of Canadians, a more market-based approach to valuing pension liabilities, combined with low interest rates and the stock market losses which resulted from the technology meltdown, resulted in challenges for pension plan sponsors and members.

All those four things came together. It was the perfect storm, and you ended up with a lot of pension funds because of all those things. They had x number of members, they were supposed to have x amount of dollars, and in a lot of cases they never had the dollars. The surpluses went to the deficiency. Of course, that is troublesome, because if anybody pays into a pension fund, only to find out down the road that, whoa, I am going to live twenty years after I retire but there is not enough money in my pension fund, what is going on? Where did the money go?

What this is doing, it is going to require people, that you must maintain a certain level of funding, so that you cannot, at the end of the day, say: Sorry, we managed your funds as best we can. We had your pension money but, because of certain circumstances, we do not have it here now and we cannot look after all of you.

This is a legal requirement, as I understand, that this Province now is going to step in line with the rest of Canada and say, if you are administering a plan here for someone, you must make sure that you keep enough funds in there to pay out of the pension when the time comes. That is strictly what this is, and I think that is a good piece of legislation. I think it is needed, and again it is an example of how Legislatures work.

If this thing had not happened somewhere else, in some other jurisdiction, if we had not had this technology meltdown and stock market dips and so on, it might never have been an issue, but it became an issue because somebody experienced it somewhere else. The government, in fairness to the minister and the government, became proactive on it and said yes, we have to protect these people, so they passed this piece of legislation, or want it passed today, and we will certainly be speaking in favour of it.

It is a good piece of legislation. It needs to be done. When the time comes, in all of the different stages of the bill, we will certainly be voting in favour of it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Collins): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of order before we carry on with debate of this bill, if there are any further members who wish to speak. I do it because I did not interrupt my colleague, my friend, the Opposition House Leader, I guess, in almost an hour of debate, or pretty close to it, on Bill 21. I could have, but I chose not to do so. There was no urgency to do it.

I want to make clear that what took place in the House this afternoon in debate in principal, second reading of Bill 21, I do not want, in any way, to be considered any precedent by the Chair for any future references as to what is or is not a money bill.

Bill 21, Mr. Speaker, is, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997. Let me read the amendment. It is very short. Let me read it for the House and anybody who might be listening. This is the amendment. It says, "Where, on the termination, after April 1, 2008, of a pension plan, other than a multi-employer pension plan, the assets in the pension fund are less than the value of the benefits provided under the plan, the employer shall, as prescribed by the regulations, make the payments into the pension fund, in addition to the payments required under subsection (1), that are necessary to fund the benefits provided under the plan."

That is the amendment that Bill 21 proposes to the Pension Benefits Act, 1997. It has nothing to do with the expenditure of public funds, Mr. Speaker. The only time a money bill – we refer to them colloquially in the Legislature as a money bill - the only time a money bill is a money bill in this Legislature is when it deals with the expenditure of public funds, when it deals with a budget measure, when it deals with a tax measure, when it deals with a tax bill, when it deals with a loan guarantee bill, when it deals with the expenditure of public money that has to be appropriated by vote of this Legislature. Then, that is a money bill in its purest and simplest form.

We passed bills oodles of times that referred to the private expenditure of money, or control the private expenditure of money. The bill that we did the other day on funeral embalmers, for example, there is a component of public money in that, particularly if you prepay on a funeral. That was not the principle of the bill. The principle was to do something else.

The principle of this bill was to do another matter. It had nothing to do with waste disposal committees. It had nothing to do with environment. It had nothing to do with municipal affairs. It had nothing to do with the expenditure of public money, so I want to make it - I would ask Your Honour, at some point, the Chair at some point, to make it clear that the debate that took place here today, while I have no objection to it, and if I did I should have stood, which I did not, so in that context I do not object, but maybe some time down the road when the Opposition House Leader is Government House Leader, somebody might say: but on April 22, 2008, the then Opposition House Leader proposed that this pension bill was a money bill, the expenditure of public money. The precedent has been set, Your Honour, and the House can do nothing about it only vote to overrule it.

Well, I would not want it to be said that happened on my watch as Government House Leader, and I do not propose that it happen, because I am sure that it is contrary to every rule in the parliamentary rule book, that this – it is a stretch beyond the wildest imagination that this would be considered a public money bill. It is not, and I would ask for a ruling on that at some time, at Your Honour's pleasure.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the point of order, maybe I can make things easy for the Chair as well.

First of all, I appreciate the courtesy and graciousness of the Government House Leader. As he says, he could have stood up on a point of order and interfered and interjected, made his point at any time that I was speaking, but, being the gentleman that he is, he did not do that. I appreciate that, number one, the courtesies that you have shown to myself as the speaker.

I would agree, as well, that it should not be a precedent. I would agree, as well, if that is of any assistance to the Chair. I would say that it should not be a precedent. Maybe in the past - certainly since I have been here - we have, from time to time, taken liberties as to what could or could not be done. We are pretty good in terms of dealing with each other consensually and with leave. Maybe in terms of where it fits under the money bill, I have no problem in agreeing that the Government House Leader may well be right in his interpretation of what constitutes a money bill.

I appreciate the fact that, given the timeliness of this issue, he allowed me, without interruption, to have the opportunity to speak on the issue at length. Again, I agree that in future maybe we should all here in the Chamber confine ourselves, when we talk about money bills, to Budget, to Supplementary Supply, Interim Supply, tax bills and expenditure of the public purse. If that would be of any assistance to the Chair, I would have no problem in agreeing that he has raised a valid and justifiable point of order and that we should confine ourselves to the discussion of money bills in the future as per the dictates that he laid out.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has heard both arguments here and understands that the Standing Orders are somewhat vague and silent on what constitutes a money bill and what does not. I will take it under advisement for a ruling as expeditiously as possible.

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

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

I am glad to take a bit of time to speak to this bill, a bill that is short, a very short amendment to the Pension Benefits Act, but a very important bill, because this amendment to the Pension Benefits Act will ensure that people who are covered by pensions will not be penalized if the assets in the pension fund run out. It is a very small thing, I think, that we can do for the working people in this Province. People pay into pension plans. It is not just the employer, whether it is a private employer or a public employer. It is not just the employer who pays into the pension plans. Every worker who has a pension plan has paid into it, and the one thing that they should be able to depend on, during the time when they no longer are doing paid labour, is to have that pension that they paid into, no matter how long they paid into it. Sometimes people get a pension that is partial. The way work goes today, a lot of people have more than one job over their working life and they may have a number of partial pension, but all of those partial pensions together add up to their having some kind of life of security after they are no longer doing paid labour.

The least that we can do as legislators in this Province is to make sure that when the time comes to receive their money, there is money there for them to receive, because it is their money. I know the employers put money in as well but it is not just the employers' money, it is the workers' money also. Actually, to put it bluntly, it is about time that this clause is there in the Pension Benefits Act. I am surprised that it was not put in before. Maybe when the government put the almost $2 million into the teachers' pension fund, precisely to avoid the kind of thing happening to teachers that is alluded to in this amendment, to make sure that the pension fund is kept up so that the teachers would continue to receive their pensions, perhaps when the government did that, they realized then that they should cover responsibility for other workers who might be affected, so realized that the Pension Benefits' Act needed the amendment that is being proposed today.

I want to take a moment to talk a little bit about pensions since this amendment is on pensions. We have a responsibility to people who have worked in our public sector. We have a responsibility to them to ensure that they have not just pensions but that they have adequate pensions, that they have pensions that are enabling them to have lives at least as good as what they had when they were working. They need to know that they are not going to be living in poverty. We know that we have that issue in the Province, that we do have pensioners who are living in poverty. We have pensioners who are going to food banks. We have pensioners who cannot afford to pay for all their prescription drugs.

I find it difficult to stand here, with this amendment on the table, and not speak on their behalf today because I continue to hear from these pensioners. I continue to hear from them about the hardships in their lives. All I want to do is to remind government that it has a responsibility for these pensioners, just as it has a responsibility for pensioners in general. This amendment today shows that they realize that they have that responsibility because they are assuring that workers in general will be protected, that there will be money in their pension funds through this legislation. Government recognizes its responsibility to pensioners, and I encourage government to continue to recognize that responsibility in looking at the situation of public pensioners who are living in poverty. I know that there are groups of these workers who speak to government, who approached them, who approached their own MHAs and try to get government to recognize their plight. We have all had them come to us. We have all had them sit down and meet with us. I have no power to make that happen. My colleagues on the other side of the House do have the power to make it happen. In this day and age, where we do have so many resources at our fingertips now in the Province, when we have money rolling in from the high price of oil, money rolling in, in the royalties that come to us, that if anybody deserves to see something concrete benefiting them because of the new resources that we have as a Province it is the seniors in this Province, it is the pensioners in this Province.

I like to think that this amendment is a moment to help us recognize that responsibility, that it is a moment for us to stop and think about the people we don't see every day, the people who are not here in this room with us, but people who are out there suffering because they don't have enough income, and yet they are people who worked all their lives, who helped built up this Province of ours, who did all kinds of work in the public sector and now are living in poverty.

It is easy for us to lose sight of those people when we sit here in the House of Assembly. It is easy for us to lose sight of the people who elected us to be where we are. I know we all try to get out in our constituencies and we all try to stay in touch with the reality of the people's lives, the reality of the lives of the people who voted for us, but it is easy when we come into this cocoon to forget that we represent them. It is easy for us when we come into this cocoon to also forget that they are watching us when we are here and they want to know that we are aware of them and they want to know that we care about them.

That is why today I do want to remember those people. I do want to remember that they are depending on us, and I say to my colleagues in government they are depending on you. They are depending on you to turn things around. They are depending on you to make sure that they have increased pensions. They are depending on you to make sure that their pensions go up with the cost of living, that they have indexed pensions. This is something that they totally depend on, and they are in your hands.

Today you have shown some concern and as we vote on this amendment on this bill, which I will be doing – I will be voting for it because it is the right and proper thing that we do it – as we vote on it, we have to remember that there are more issues than the one that this amendment deals with, and those issues have to be addressed.

It is shameful that we should have pensioners going to food banks. It is shameful that we should have people who have to choose between what prescription drugs they are going to be able to pay for. People, as I said, who worked hard for this Province, who worked all their lives, who helped build up this Province and now are going around begging. It has to end, and there are many ways in which we can end that, and I will not go through all of the ways in which that can happen.

I will honour the point of order that has been raised by the Speaker of the House on which a ruling has to happen. I will respect his point of order, especially because of the response from the Opposition House Leader to the point of order raised by the House Leader. I will not try to mimic what was done before me. I will respect that, waiting the ruling of the Chair, ruling of the Speaker. I will not go into all of the details of the things that need to be done for the pensioners in our Province and all the things that they are suffering, but we have to make sure that they are taken care of. So, this is one way to do it. This is one way to do it, to make sure that pension plans do not dry up, that pension plans do not end, that they are there for them for as long as they need them. That is one way. Another way is to look at indexation of pensions, of public pensions. Another way is to make sure that public pensions go up initially before an indexation is laid on them, so that people will have enough money.

We cannot sit here and approve increases for ourselves every year, as we have the power to do. We cannot sit here and do that and not see the need for public sector pensioners, and all pensioners actually, to have indexation of pensions. Now, I know that it has not been a history of pensions, I realize that, but I think it is time to turn that around because the cost of living continues to go up. It goes up, it goes up, it goes up. Pensioners are on fixed income. The amount of money they get does not change. Something has to be done about that and it is a discussion that government has to involve itself in. It is not right that they do not have indexation. As I said, I realize that it has not been the history of pensions, but government has the power to do it. Government does not have the power to tell private plans, to tell private companies that they have to index their pensions. Then, for people who are in private pension plans, government has to find ways to help pensioners to meet the cost of living stress that they are under. With the public sector, however, government does have the power to do that.

With this short amendment - as I said, there are many things around the poverty of pensioners that I could get into, but I will not. With this short amendment, it is a reminder that pensioners are out there, that pensioners need to be cared for. I do not mean that in a paternalistic way, I mean it in a sense of responsibility. They need to know that those of us who are in this room, who are here representing them, that we understand what they go through as people on fixed incomes and we find all the ways possible to help them deal with the cost of living. There are many ways to do it, as I indicated, and I think that the challenge to us is to find the ways to help them with the cost of living that they endure as people on fixed income.

I am going to leave my comments there, Mr. Speaker, to say that I am really glad this amendment has reached the floor. I am really glad that we will be voting for this amendment and I shall be voting for it.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, I welcome the chance to close debate in regards to Bill 21, an amendment to the Pension Benefits Act, 1997. I consider this a very, very important amendment and I welcome the thoughts and words of my colleagues, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, as well as the Opposition House Leader.

I consider this a very, very important bill. It is clear in what it does. It protects employees with regards to their pension in the long term. It certainly addresses any deficits on windup of a pension plan over a five-year period so that it would prevent the benefits that would be derived from that pension plan by an employee in the future from being diminished.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very important bill. I also will say, is that my staff in Government Services will continue, and are always continuing, to strengthen our acts and strengthen our pension plans in regards to protecting our employees, and will do so in the future and continue to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997, be now read a second time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 21)

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

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 21)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call Order 9, second reading of Bill 22, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999." (Bill 22)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce Bill 22. This is An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999.

As you are certainly aware, Mr. Speaker, and the Opposition House Leader, the Government House Leader, there are approximately, at any given time in this Province, 400 practicing lawyers. There are, as you are also well aware, different types of lawyers in terms of the types of activities they engage in. There are lawyers who practice criminal law, there are lawyers who do corporate and commercial law, personal injury law, family law, and lawyers who conduct a general practice doing all areas of law. In fact, in this Province, Mr. Speaker, the majority of lawyers, I would suggest, engage in the practice in various aspects of law.

The Law Society Act governs the members of the Law Society because as a self-governing body the Law Society has the obligation to utilize the legislation to essentially govern its members and protect the public. The rationale for having self-governing bodies, Mr. Speaker, is that there are so many of them in this Province, we have the medical association, we have the architects association. The Minister of Government Services has introduced a number of bills earlier streamlining some of these acts. Government, as a whole, cannot look after all of these self-governing bodies. These bodies are made up of members of their professions and they, it is presumed, have the expertise to set rules and regulations governing their conduct. Significantly, from a government's perspective, a governmental perspective, the purpose of the acts that we legislate is to ensure that these bodies act in accordance with the legislation and protect the public.

This particular amendment, Mr. Speaker, is in relation to a number of matters. The principal changes are to the current disciplinary process of the Law Society Act, including: a revision of the definition of the conduct deserving a sanction, which I will review shortly; allowing a complainant – and this is a very significant amendment, Mr. Speaker – allowing a complainant, whose complaint has been rejected, a right of appeal to the Trial Division of the Supreme Court; the removal of the authority of the vice-president to conduct a preliminary investigation into a complaint prior to its referral to the Complaints Authorization Committee; giving the Complaints Authorization Committee authority to conduct a practice review, where it thinks one is warranted, on receiving a complaint; the expansion of the requirement for the Law Society to publish a summary of the outcome of disciplinary proceedings; and the removal of a right of appeal from a disciplinary tribunal to benchers and the provision of a right of appeal to the Trial Division.

These amendments, or suggested amendments, Mr. Speaker, have been made in consultation with the Law Society, although the Department of Justice and the Law Society did not necessarily agree on all of the amendments, and I will explain that as we go through this.

The primary function, as indicated, Mr. Speaker, is to amend the disciplinary process for lawyers to conform to the model approved by government and currently being employed by other professions in the Province. It clarifies the authority of benchers – and although you and I, and the Government House Leader, the Opposition House Leader and the Premier, may know what we are talking about when I refer to benchers, for the purpose of the general public, the Law Society is governed by a president, a vice-president, an executive committee, but then there are a number of lawyers who are called benchers, and there also lay benchers.

Benchers are lawyers who are in good standing with the Law Society, from various parts of the Province, so that the concerns of lawyers, not only, for example, in St. John's or the surrounding area, or on the Avalon Peninsula, but in Central Newfoundland, on the South Coast of Newfoundland, in Western Newfoundland, and in Labrador, are heard.

So this body comes together on a number of occasions, as outlined in the act, and deals with general issues facing the Law Society; and, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, we certainly had a number of those in the last number of years. That is one of the reasons, as we are looking at the amendments to this act, we want to ensure that the Law Society recognizes the importance with which government views giving them the ability to govern themselves, for lack of a better way to put it, so these benchers come together and make decisions.

Then, as I go through the amendments, the benchers - there is a Complaints Authorization Committee, there is a disciplinary committee and an adjudication committee, so that if members of the public feel aggrieved they have the mechanism by which to make a complaint. Again I will review, in a few minutes, as I go through the proposed amendments, the ways in which that can be done.

So, these amendments allow the Law Society - it increases the mandate of the Law Society to regulate the practice of law, again, and I repeat, in the public interest. Because, as lawyers, or as former - I suppose I am still a lawyer, or six months ago, in any event, a practicing lawyer – we are dealing with the public. It is important that the public - as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, in the nature of a solicitor-client relationship we are not always going to agree. In fact, as lawyers, we or they have to make decisions with which sometimes the client does not agree. The role of the lawyer is to advise the client, but the client makes the decision. As long as that decision does not involve any breach of ethics, any involvement in criminal activity, it is the client's choice; however, oftentimes, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, when things do not go necessarily the way the client wanted them to go, then they sometimes can look to the lawyer as being the individual, he or she, who gave them bad advice. So, it is important to distinguish between bad advice and, as I go through this, what is referred to as conduct deserving of sanction.

The role of lawyers in society - and we are probably, Mr. Speaker, you and I and the others here who are lawyers and politicians, it is a double whammy in terms of the way the public perhaps looks at us, but there is a point in time when you need lawyers. The role of lawyers historically in society has always been one of significance, one where lawyers play an important role.

As I have indicated, the nature of the solicitor-client relationship is that there will oftentimes be difficulties. The client who is paying money wants to direct the lawyer to take certain steps. That lawyer, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, has ethical obligations as outlined in the code of conduct over which we cannot trespass. For example, the one crucial, or the one rule that can never broken by a criminal lawyer is the client who says to the lawyer: Well, I am going to lie in court.

Well, that client is not going to lie in court with the lawyer present, and the lawyer has every obligation to protect the solicitor-client privilege but to ensure that doesn't take place. Involving in criminal activity where the client wants the lawyer to break the law is another example.

The other side of it, Mr. Speaker, is that we have an adversarial process and we have a situation where, for example, in family law emotions run very high. We have situations where people are fighting over custody of their children, where normal law-abiding citizens caught up in the emotion of the moment may not necessarily make what the lawyer would consider to be a rational judgment. So, it becomes very difficult.

Oftentimes in our legal system there is no winner. How often have we seen it, Mr. Speaker, where clients who go to trial, be it in criminal matters, be it in family matters or civil matters, at the end of the day there is oftentimes no winner. The process itself is difficult, it causes stress and trauma, and the lawyer oftentimes plays the role of counsellor, lawyer and friend. It is a difficult mix.

One very important aspect of the lawyer-client relationship is that oftentimes clients feel they have paid too much for too little and that becomes a matter they want to go to the Law Society with.

AN HON. MEMBER: It would never happen to you!

MR. KENNEDY: I heard a comment from the peanut gallery there, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't be insulting our side.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, that is right, it is our side.

The point I am trying to make is that there is a difficult mix in trying to make sure we protect the public, but also we have to ensure too that lawyers are treated fairly. However, there is a higher obligation placed upon us because of the nature of the fiduciary duty. A lawyer-client relationship is one where there is a special relationship. There is an obligation to ensure that the client is treated fairly and honestly and provided with all of the information.

Over the last twenty years, Mr. Speaker, I have seen numerous examples of activities of lawyers who have been subjected to censure, and you wonder, what was he or she thinking at the time. Again, I am not trying to make excuses for anyone, but there are two sides to every story.

What the Law Society has to do, it has to ensure that it treats its members fairly, it encourages rehabilitation and counselling where necessary, but also that it acts firmly in the public interest. Some of these amendments, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, will accomplish exactly that.

One last point I would make before I move to the actual looking at the bill, is that we are oftentimes dealing with money. We go into a court, especially if you look at a civil proceeding, Mr. Speaker, and there are two people who have taken a number of years of their lives, two groups, a company, arguing over something. They are both paying their lawyers and they both expect to win. There can only be one winner, if again anyone wins. Someone then can also not only lose the case but costs can be awarded against them, and that again leads to further disputes. The nature of the solicitor-client relationship can also be somewhat adversarial and it is not always that the client and the lawyer are working together as they should.

In light of this, Mr. Speaker, it is important that the disciplinary process be structured in a way that allows an individual who feels aggrieved to present a complaint to the Law Society. The procedure must also be structured in a way whereby that complaint can be heard, but it has to be structured in a way that the rules of natural justice apply. It has to be structured in such a way that the individual who is complained of can be heard. What we have, Mr. Speaker, is a situation whereby the disciplinary procedure tries to strike, as we often do in this procedure, a difficult balance, a balance between protecting the rights of the public and ensuring that the people who are subject to the disciplinary process, the lawyers, are treated fairly.

In relation to this Act, Mr. Speaker, the first reference I want to make is to the amendments to the disciplinary proceedings which are, as I have indicated, meant to conform to the model that is utilized by government. Section 41 will be amended so that conduct deserving of sanction - because every complaint is not a valid complaint. There are complaints which have to be heard and where the individuals have to be allowed to proceed: professional misconduct; the stealing of monies; the lying to a client; and the commission of criminal acts. Those are obvious examples of professional misconduct. Professional misconduct could also involve not returning a client's call, although that would, in terms of seriousness, go down the list. Failure to maintain the standards of practice - again the code of professional conduct outlines those standards of practice and it is very important that those standards of practice be maintained. We rely, as a government, upon the Law Society to monitor the activities of its members. Conduct unbecoming a member of the Society – now, these are terms that are very wide open but there has been precedent developed over the years in terms of what is conduct unbecoming of a member of the society. However, what we have to try to do, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that it is not too broad, whereby it becomes an opinion of an individual or a group of individuals. As lawyers, we have to look at things logically but also we have to apply common sense.

In terms of the conduct, that is in a general way what the Law Society is trying to address. The benchers then could put together a Complaints Authorization Committee, where the complaint would come in and the benchers would examine it. They could then determine to send it on or to do various things. One very significant factor, considering the way the public looks at lawyers, Mr. Speaker, is that there is no pay. Lawyers who sit on this committee do not get paid for this. The Complaints Authorization Committee and the person appointed shall serve on the panel without payment for their services. Now, that is a novel concept to many people on the part of a lawyer, serve without payment for their services, but they may be remunerated for service of an adjudication panel. In other words, the complaints panel can move to the adjudication panel and then they would be paid, and of course people get their expenses paid.

The Complaints Authorization Committee has its power set out, and then the process is started by an allegation. That is exactly what it is, Mr. Speaker, an allegation that something has not gone right in the solicitor-client relationship. Or, the vice-president can commence an allegation on his or her own, a judge can complain, can make an allegation. So, the allegations can come in various forms. Normally, it is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that an allegation comes from a member of the public who does not feel that he or she has been treated fairly by a lawyer, has been aggrieved by a lawyer, or has a particular complaint about a lawyer's conduct.

When we move to section 44, we deal with the effect of filing an allegation. There can be a resolution, if it can be at an early stage, which is the type of mediation, as you are aware of, Mr. Speaker, something that is more and more accepted in our legal proceedings. As opposed to being involved in costly proceedings, we look at mediation and resolution. However, if there is no resolution, it goes to the Complaints Authorization Committee, which has, again, various powers.

Also, there is a spectrum of behaviour, Mr. Speaker. The spectrum can range from a minor breach to a very serious breach. The penalties can range from someone who gets what is called a caution – in other words, you should not have done that and do not do it again; now that is my interpretation of it and I do not know if that is exactly what it is, what the word caution means - right to disbarment. In between, there has to be a range of disciplinary proceedings available to the Law Society.

Very significantly, Mr. Speaker, once we are beyond this issue of complaint then we go to a hearing and hearings are important in terms of the lawyers. Now, there are a number of lawyers, or benchers who become the adjudication tribunal. There shall be a chairperson of the tribunal. There is a right to have a lawyer. You go to a hearing and the rules of natural justice, as I have indicated, apply. What happens is the respondent or the individual then can plead guilty if he or she accepts responsibility and admits what can either be a technical breach or a very serous breach. If there is no guilty plea, it goes to a hearing and if there is a finding of guilt, again the range of penalties goes, Mr. Speaker, from a reprimand all the way to disbarment.

In terms of the amendment of the Law Society Act and disciplinary procedures, it again outlines consistent with government model and, as the Minister of Government Services has outlined in previous acts, the way we are trying to co-ordinate this within government.

However, there is a significant factor here which I would suggest a lot of lawyers might not agree with, but it is an important one and one that I would submit is necessary. Under subsection 3 of section 51, there can be a publication of the – "The society shall publish a summary of a decision or order of an adjudication tribunal in a newspaper of general circulation in or nearest to the community in which the respondent practices within 14 days of the expiry of the appeal period…"

That sounds like a draconian move: that is not fair, you are going to publish the name of an individual. We see individuals' names published all the time, however it is not that simple. The publication of a name can only occur where there has been a suspension of a lawyer, where a lawyer has to surrender his or her licence because it is important that the public know this person is no longer practicing law, where the respondent's practice is restricted, and where the respondent or the lawyer is disbarred, where there are conditions for the continuing practice of the respondent or that a summary decision be published. It is only in certain circumstances. Lawyers do not have the threat that every one who runs into problems with the Law Society will find their name published. It is in a strict set of proceedings.

Very significantly, Mr. Speaker, section 52 deals with the issues of disbarment and suspension. Now, in order to be suspended or disbarred there have to be very serious proven facts. It is not enough that there be a dispute between a client and a lawyer. Normally, in terms of any issues of disbarment, it generally relates to individuals who have been found guilty, for example, of stealing a trust fund; individuals who have been found guilty on numerous occasions of fraud or of very serious allegations.

So, it is not a situation where an individual is disbarred or suspended, because the Law Society, like so many other societies, also self-governing bodies, has the obligation to help its members if and when it can. In other words, if someone suffers from mental health issues, for example, or addiction issues, then oftentimes the Law Society, like other societies, will intercede to try to provide the counselling necessary to try to address the problems because that is what we have to do as a government and as self-governing bodies, try to help people, not simply to jump on them.

Even if an individual - and we have heard stories of this over the years, Mr. Speaker - is disbarred, they can still reapply for admission. In our act, under the new section 54, there would have to be new evidence has become available or material change in circumstances. So, again, you are never saying no. This act is never saying no on the fact that even a lawyer who has gotten himself or herself into very serious trouble and has been disbarred that they can never come back. There has to be though, as outlined, a new evidence or material change of circumstances which would have to be significant, and I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, would involve a passage of time.

One other very significant aspect of this amendment is the ability of both the complainant, in other words the individual who feels aggrieved, and also the lawyer to appeal to the Trial Division. The complainant, it is my understanding, prior to this - I read this somewhere, I hope I am accurate on this - did not have a right of appeal. Now they can go to Trial Division.

The lawyer, initially - and I remember reading a case not too long ago - who was found guilty of conduct unbecoming had to appeal from the decision of benchers straight to the Court of Appeal, as opposed to going to Trial Division. So, for members of the public, simply our court system is set up where we have a provincial court system, we have our superior court, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, we have the Supreme Court which deals with trials, deals with hearings and then we have the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. So, it is much more efficient from the perspective of the lawyer and of the individual to give them that right to go before a judge, and in certain circumstances, a further right of appeal could, perhaps, apply.

So, this bill is meant to look at making the disciplinary model consistent. It takes into account, most significantly, the protection of the public but also allows for the rules of national justice to apply and to assure that lawyers who are the subject of complaints have the right to be heard and present their case.

A number of the other amendments, Mr. Speaker, to the act are - for example, under section 8 of the Law Society Act, 1999, an appointed bencher whose term has expired can continue in office now with this proposed amendment until he or she is appointed, or a successor is appointed.

I just want to get the old act to make sure I have that correct. Under section 8 - yes, it does. What we are doing here, Mr. Speaker, the amendment allows for the permission for the continuation office of an appointed bencher whose term has expired until he or she is reappointed or until a successor is appointed. This is now allowing for continuation or continuity within the legislation. This provision is now routinely included in legislation for other entities in this Province.

Bill 22 also includes an amendment to section 18 of the Law Society Act, 1999, to make explicit the authority of benchers to regulate the practice of law and the legal profession in the public interest and to clarify that benchers may delegate duties to employees of the Law Society.

As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the Law Society has an executive director. The executive director has a staff and the benchers are compiled of practicing lawyers, as is the president and the vice-president. So there has to be, in order for the Law Society to function, that ability to delegate work.

This amendment simply makes explicit, Mr. Speaker, what is in law already the case. The staff of the Law Society are obviously very capable individuals and they are more than equipped to work under the guidance of the executive director and also then the executive committee and benchers.

This new bill would add a provision, section 18.1, which would require that the Law Society submit an annual report on its activities to government. This provision parallels the annual reporting requirements for public bodies contained in the Transparency and Accountability Act. So like other bodies within the purview of the Minister of Justice, the law society will also have to file an act.

The bill also proposed an amendment to section 20 of the act to allow a bencher who is in his or her last year of office to remain in office for one additional year when he or she has the choice of benchers for appointment as president for the following year. I understand it has happened on a number of times, that a bencher who will eventually work his or her way up - I do not know if they still have the secretary. The President of the Law Society used to be called a treasurer at one point, but they worked their way up to vice-president, president, but then their term expires. It is my understanding that we currently have - this amendment will relate to - I think Sheila Greene will become the next President of the Law Society by bringing in this amendment. Sheila becomes the third or fourth female President of our Law Society. It is very important, in these circumstances, that she be given the opportunity to serve. We simply amend this to allow her to accept that for which she has been chosen as president by her peers. It allows for both continuity and experience. If the members of the Law Society choose a particular individual, we believe this choice should be respected.

We are also amending section 35. When I first read this, I have to indicate that I had some concern. We are going to expand the authority of the education committee to consider matters other than academic qualification for admission as a student at law. Now, unfortunately, lawyers have never been looked upon as the moral guardians of our society. Whatever I may think of that, or how unfairly I think the public may look at us, unfortunately, history in the present dictates that is perhaps a fair opinion. Perhaps there is only one profession, I know of, that were ranked lower than lawyers -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: I am here also. I did not want to say that, but someone in the background.

Basically, Mr. Speaker, my concern with the education committee is that essentially what we are doing, we are codifying that which they have always done. It is just I would suggest that there has to be prudence there, and caution, in passing moral judgement on the character of other individuals.

If individuals have the academic qualifications, well, that is the first step. This amendment will permit the committee to consider the character and suitability of the applicant. Now, that gets a little bit dicey, Mr. Speaker, when we are going to allow other people to deserve - you can become one of our chosen few.

That is a situation where there would have to be pretty blatant reasons for exercising that power and it is one, I would suggest, that would have to be exercised sparingly. I am aware, for example, of a number of situations in the past where the character of applicants has been called into question, and I have to state that it is unseemly.

What this provision will do, however, will allow for the good sense of the education committee to look at all of the circumstances and to determine whether or not the facts of an individual case dictate the use of this provision.

So, essentially what we are doing, we are legislating that which has always been the case. However, again I would caution that because a person has difficulties, that should not be enough by itself. Again, this is where the nature of the self-governing body, we have to protect against arbitrariness. We cannot simply allow, if you took ten of us here and we said: Will we allow that person to become a Member of the House of Assembly? I do not like the colour of the suit he has on today.

In other words, we have to make sure that there are guidelines in place, and I am sure there are other reasons that we could look at individuals through our own biases or through lenses that may not be as objective as we think they are.

It is important, Mr. Speaker, that Human Rights legislation be respected as we look at who are becoming members of the Law Society. In other words, this power has been given to the education committee but I would suggest that it be utilized very sparingly and in a very objective manner. However, the Law Society has an obligation to the public to ensure that its members are looking after the best interests.

Now, the problem I have, when you have 400 people, when you have, I think this year we will probably have forty or fifty people apply to the Law Society, how do you determine who should be a member of the Law Society? Because someone did something when they were a kid or they have a criminal record, for example, should that automatically prohibit? I would suggest not. An individual who has had personal difficulties – again, I would suggest that by itself should not be enough. Nor is there any indication or have I ever been aware, Mr. Speaker, where anything like that has ever been utilized.

In any event, it was after looking at the rationale of the amendment that I agreed that at this stage we are simply putting into legislation that which has existed. That is where section 35 of the act comes into play.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment to section 38.(2), which I talked about earlier, is an important one because it arose from a complaint, if I remember correctly, that there would be no ground of appeal from a benchers' decision.

If you were dissatisfied with a decision of the education committee you can appeal a benchers, but now what that will do also is provide an additional right of appeal to the Trial Division from the decision of benchers. That is very important also, so that if an individual, for whatever reason, benchers decide well, we do not want you amongst our midst, then it allows it to go to the Trial Division and have it heard by a judge.

Mr. Speaker, in summary - and I just want to make sure I have covered all of the amendments here. Mr. Speaker, in terms of what can happen, and I referred to this earlier, in terms of whether an individual pleads guilty or is found guilty, there is a recognition in the act that the Law Society can, for example, order that the respondent obtain medical treatment, obtain counselling, obtain substance abuse counselling or treatment, and that the respondent can demonstrate to the adjudication tribunal or other body that the respondent is fit to resume practice.

As we are all aware, and very few of us get to the stage in life that we are where you do not encounter difficulties, as we are all aware, people make mistakes and people can encounter difficulties in life. It is important, especially in professions or in government, that we recognize that. You cannot turf someone out because they find themselves at a point in life where there is a crisis.

The Law Society - and we built this in, as in other acts, where there is the obligation, I would suggest, there is the opportunity for the individual who wishes to comply with treatment and counselling to obtain the same.

I think that is a very good step, Mr. Speaker. It is one that speaks to our belief of society that people are good and they can rehabilitate themselves. It gives them that opportunity so that, even if you or I do not agree with individual decisions of a lawyer, we are saying we have the obligation to help you and we are offering you that help. However, Mr. Speaker, it also allows for the continuing monitoring of practices, if individuals have difficulties, for example.

It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that bankruptcy does not prohibit a person from practicing law, but what my understanding is, is that bankruptcy results in another individual having to look after the trust account of that individual. It is not a comment on the moral makeup of that individual. It is simply recognition, because you have had certain personal problems, financial problems, that does not mean you cannot practice law. It means simply that the Law Society has to put a mechanism in place.

There can be periodic inspections of a his or her practice. In fact I think, Mr. Speaker, there are spot audits that take place now whereby the Law Society can come in and check the accounts, and these auditors that they send in are pretty accurate.

So what we have is a wide range of remedies or punishments – call them what you like. Also, one of the other aspects, it is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, it was quite common, if a person had a complaint against them to the Law Society, and he or she was found guilty, they would pay the cost of the Law Society's investigation. It is my understanding that could run to $10,000 or $20,000. Now, I think it is one of the amendments here which would allow for the payment of costs to an individual who is found not guilty, if part of the complaint was frivolous or vexatious.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would suggest that these amendments are practical, they are in line with other amendments that have been made, and I would simply want to summarize them as this: All we are doing here is, we are changing the current disciplinary provisions, which repeals and substitutes Part II of the act, a revision of the definition of conduct deserving of sanction; giving a complainant whose complaint has been rejected – and this is an important one – a complainant whose complaint has been rejected, a right of appeal to the Trial Division of the Supreme Court.

It is very important that the Law Society, or any other self-governing body for that matter, Mr. Speaker, not be seen as a secret society, where they are out to protect themselves. The public have to at least have that opportunity to make their case, and if they are not satisfied with the decision made of the Law Society they can go to a court and have a court look at that.

The removal of the authority of the vice-president to conduct a preliminary investigation, prior to its referral to the Complaints Authorization Committee, this is simply meant to remove any bias that an individual may have, knowingly or unknowingly. We all have biases. Some of them we know about; others come with us in terms of our makeup, the way we are raised, and our attitudes, so that we can be affected by things we do not even know about, even highly trained people who are trying their best to be objective and fair.

So, it is my understanding, the vice-president can order a preliminary investigation. All we are saying now is: Look, go to a group of people; the Complaints Authorization Committee can deal with this.

If there is an immediate need for action, Mr. Speaker - and, as you are aware, over the last number of years there were times that the Law Society has had to move immediately, and perhaps times they have not moved quick enough, but in terms of going in and taking over an individual's practice, for whatever reason, that has happened on a number of occasions. Again, that is an important factor and one that still remains.

The Complaints Authorization Committee is given the authority to conduct a practice review on receipt of a complaint. So, it is not simply left to the vice-president, or the president, or an individual, or the executive director of the Law Society; it goes to the Complaints Authorization Committee.

The expansion of the requirement for the Law Society to publish a summary of the outcome of disciplinary proceedings in certain circumstances, that is one that I have no difficulty with. There are some lawyers who would feel that is punitive, but all the time we see people whose names are published as a result of their trial proceedings. All the time we see individuals who are charged with an offence, whose names show up in a newspaper and on TV. In this particular case, this would only happen after the lawyers have been found guilty.

Now, in order to try to streamline the process more, removing the right of appeal from a disciplinary tribunal to the benchers, we are now providing that right of appeal to the Trial Division where there is a judge.

These changes will result in full conformity of the disciplinary provisions applicable to members of the Law Society with the disciplinary model government has approved and this House has applied to members of other professions.

These are changes, Mr. Speaker, that you and I, and other members of this House, if we ever return to the practice of law, will be subject to, but that is the good thing, that all lawyers, all members of these self-governing professions, are subject to these provisions.

I believe these provisions are progressive and are in the best interest of the Law Society, its membership, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak as we move forward with these important amendments.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few brief words in regard to Bill 22, which deals with the Law Society.

Second Reading, of course, is again to discuss the general principles of where we are going, and we will have an opportunity when we get into Committee to drill down into some of the details and discuss some of the specifics of it. I usually like to take the occasion in Second Reading, as well, as a courtesy to the minister, if there are some concerns, rather than get him into Committee and then start popping questions and he might need some time to think about it or whatever. I usually try to incorporate the questions into Second Reading so it gives the minister an opportunity to be prepared, so that when we get to Committee stage we don't have that many delays and so on, and he is in a better position to provide the answers.

This is a bill, by the way, to amend the Law Society Act. It is not a new law starting from scratch or anything. We are amending what already exists. Sometimes we get these things and we call it house cleaning measures. Well, I think we have a little bit more than house cleaning here. I would call it a fairly substantial renovation. We are not putting up the house but we are not doing a house cleaning, and we are doing more than putting on a porch. We are fairly substantial here.

There are a broad range of amendments in here dealing with the education committee, what are the requirements to become a lawyer in the Province and so on, who sets those criteria, what the criteria are, who administers them and so on. That is outlined here. We have existed since, I do believe, 1832 as a Law Society in this Province, and didn't have lots of these things. Again it is a case of, you have to adapt to changing times. At one time, as I understand it and certainly even in my short time there, it was pretty straightforward. You were told you had to have a law degree from a recognized law school. You did a Bar exam – we had a very limited Bar course even back then. Nowadays, I believe the Bar course is, in and of itself, six weeks at least that you go through for it.

I know in our case we went for a couple of days and that was to write the exams. I articled on the West Coast with Clyde Wells, actually, who was my principal back in 1979 and we got to come into St. John's then for two or three days and write the exams. There were no schools, there was no Bar admission course of any substance at all. That was how it worked. When you passed you exams somebody called you and said, okay, you have your law degree now and you have just passed your exams, so away you go. They give you your license, you get admitted and you practice law.

The process of admission becomes more and more complicated. People want to know exactly what this person is about in terms of their credentials, what credentials should you have to get in, who should vet your credentials and so on. That is proper. That again is being open and transparent.

The former leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Reid, who used to represent Fogo-Twillingate, he always used to have a few barbs, or course, for lawyers. He wasn't a lawyer himself but he was always good with the quips and whatever. Every time he would see me he would say: Oh, there comes one of the coven. Now I understand coven is a fairly positive term if you are describing a group of witches but it is not so positive if you are describing a group of lawyers. In their black robes, he used to say. He said: You are just like a coven, you crowd. Anyway, that coven of course, regardless of what he might think and certainly some people in the public might think, there have to be transparent regulations and rules surrounding their operations.

A lot of times there was not a lot of oversight. A lot of times if you lived in a large urban area like St. John's, for example, if you did something that was not acceptable, that was inappropriate or whatever, usually there was a fair number of lawyers around who could pick up on it and it would reach the ears of the Law Society and it would get acted upon. I know in rural Newfoundland - I practiced law, for example, exclusively in Port aux Basques years ago and the only time I heard of the Law Society you would pay your annual fees as you come into the convention when you wanted to. Other than that, nobody came to check my books. Nobody saw if I took the money from the client and put it into trust and what the regulations were. Nobody popped through the door and said, I am an auditor for the Law Society, I want to check your books and see what you did with all your money, or not your money even, the trust. They do both now. You have to tell them what you do with your money but you also have to tell them what you do with every penny of the client's money, which is proper. There was none of that.

We are advancing whereby we are putting these rules and regulations in place for the protection of two groups, really. It is for the protection of the public first and foremost, who lawyers represent, but it is also for the protection of the lawyers themselves. Yes, lawyers need sometimes to be protected from themselves, because if you do not have a set of guidelines and a set of rules like every profession that exists on the face of this earth some people take advantage. If there are no rules people will invent their own rules. Even when there are rules some people try to bend them as much as they can so they do not have to comply with them. That is why there is a need, of course, to have regulations, particularly in the case of lawyers. I mean, you are dealing with people's lives, you are dealing with their concerns and a lot of times you have large sums of money entrusted to you and you have to be accountable for that.

It is nice to see that we have this ongoing change and amendments that come to the Law Society Act, to see that we are relevant, basically, and that we keep up with today's standards. It is nice to see the amendments here about the education committee. I am particularly interested in part two of the discipline proceedings. As I say, albeit this is not a new creation of a discipline proceedings part for lawyers, it has existed for quite some time. I just checked the old Law Society Act actually in the Statutes of Newfoundland and it goes back quite some years when we had a discipline system. What they found is like most things, you put it into practice and you find out that the system you originally started with does not always do the job. It is cumbersome. You find out that, well, we have to tweak it a bit because that did not work and something else did not work and so on.

That is what we are doing here in part 2 in a lot of cases, is tweaking the discipline process so that is becomes more manageable, more useable, not only for the lawyers but also for the public who want to make a complaint. There have been a lot of name changes, as the minister said. One time who you call the president of the Law Society was actually called the treasurer. Most often, treasurer in anything I knew was called the treasurer, looked after the money, but in the Law Society, of course, the lawyers did things differently and the head of the society was not called the president, he was called the treasurer. That has all changed and we came more in line now. The president is the president, there is a vice-president and so on and there is a group called benchers.

I noticed one of the big distinctions here now to what it was, or what it is actually, versus what it will be once this law goes through, is that there was a committee set up. If you had a complaint in the public and you wrote a letter of complaint to the Law Society, there was a committee that existed of anywhere from three up to twenty-five benchers. The complaint would go to the secretary and the secretary would decide if there was any merit in that complaint, and then the secretary would pass it off to that complaints committee. Three people from that group would get together and form a panel and they would hear the case, because it has been determined now to be a legitimate complaint. They would take that allegation which is turned into a complaint, they would set up a group of three and they would hear the matter and decide where it was going to go.

If you look at that closely, you will see there is something wrong with that, because every member of that discipline committee was appointed by the benchers and were members of the Law Society. That is pretty cute, because that is like putting the fox in the henhouse. There is only a small group of you, as the minister said, I believe 400 practicing at any given time in the Province, and yet you take up to twenty-five of your own and say, if we get any complaints we will administer it ourselves. We will check it out, we will investigate it, we will decide if there has been an offense committed or some impropriety done, if there is any discipline or sanction required, and we will, in fact, impose that sanction ourselves; no input from the public.

Of course, that is not how most things work today. There needs to be a protection of the public interest. Nine times out of ten the complaints that come to the Law Society are not about one lawyer complaining about another lawyer. That happens too, but 90 per cent of them, I would think, come from the public who have a problem with the lawyers. If it is the public that you are concerned about, which you should be, there should be public involvement on the committee.

I think it is very significant here that the change we are going to have is that the committee, going to be called the Complaints Authorization Committee now, is not going to be made up of just lawyers. It is going to be made up of two groups. The benchers will appoint up to twenty people and the minister shall appoint at least ten people.

As I understand it - and if I am not getting this correct I am sure the minister will clarify it in Committee stage when we get to section 42(4) - we are going to have a complaints committee now that consists of thirty people, twenty from the lawyers and ten from the public; and, of course, we are going to rely upon the minister's good judgment and common sense to see that those ten people, obviously I would think, represent a wise and proper cross section of people in the community. I would think it would even be done on a regional basis so that we do not only reflect the (inaudible) of the people in St. John's, but we reflect the values and beliefs of people everywhere, Labrador, Western Newfoundland, Central Newfoundland.

I would think that is the usual process. You try to make sure that those public interests are protected, not only in one locale but all over the Province on a regional and a geographic basis, and also, of course, on a gender basis. I would not think it would be appropriate if the ten persons that the minister appointed were all female and I would not think it was appropriate if they were all male. I would think we can look forward to seeing some balance there in the appointment by the minister as well. We look forward, of course, to seeing that.

The other thing I noticed here, and I do not know, there probably is a very valid explanation for this, but I notice it does not seem to have any term. Maybe I missed it, but it seems to me that under this new system, once we adopt it, the thirty persons who are appointed to this panel, there does not seem to be any automatic termination date to their appointment. Maybe it is there, maybe I just did not see it, but I just read it and I refer to subsection 5 of section 42. It talked about the numbers in subsection 4 and then in subsection 5 it says, "Notwithstanding the expiry of his or her term…" I would think that means that somewhere in here I missed it. Somewhere it seems to be that there would have been a set date of how long you are appointed for. I think it maybe just a case of that, that I just missed it. That implies that there is a set date of termination for your term.

It goes on to say that a member of the panel continues to be a member until he or she is reappointed or his or her replacement is appointed. That makes perfect sense as well. I just did not see in here the section that outlined what the length of the appointment would be.

The overall section about the public interest: we are finally going to have some input by the public because if a person makes a complaint or an allegation that becomes a complaint and it is investigated by the panel, now it will not be just three lawyers looking at it. Every time you strike a panel, you just cannot have three lawyers put on the panel. You have to make sure – and it says right here in that subsection (4). Excuse me, not subsection (4). It talks about, if you have a panel: shall appoint three of their members, at least one of whom is an appointed bencher to constitute the complaints committee. So the bencher shall have a representative on there, but obviously, now you have the option of having the public interests protected as well on each and every complaints committee. So, that is necessary.

Likewise, the minister had some comments about the publication piece. I think that is notable as well, that we have gone to that stage. Sometimes it is very helpful, once a complaint is made against you, that it does become public. Sometimes it is what is not published that hurts the lawyer or hurts the individual as much as keeping it under covers or under wraps. I would suggest that just about every lawyer, or whoever practices law in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, at some point had somebody upset with them. The complaints can range from anything.

I had incidents where people got upset. For example, they said: Well, I don't think you spoke out loud or hard and long enough on my behalf. You charged me way too much. I did not get the results that I wanted. I do not think you should have charged me for what you did and you should not have charged me that much. Then, of course, there are some people who have serious problems where they actually make off with people's money. Then you are getting into real serious stuff.

There are issues of maybe the quality of the representation that you got and then there are issues of when the lawyer does something that is absolutely inappropriate, like abscond with somebody's money, take their money and never work on their file, for example. I have had that case. Not personally, but I have been involved in cases where I have dealt with other lawyers where people have come to me and said: I gave all of my papers and all of my money to such and such, and here we are eighteen months later and they have not even dealt with it. Of course, sometimes when that happens the people really do suffer, particularly if they have missed the limitation period when you are required to do something within a certain time period. They went to a lawyer, relied upon that person to do the job, who took their money, only to find out that two years have passed and they have been complaining and going back to the lawyer and saying: When am I going to get the papers? When are you going to move this? Only to find out that nothing has been done. Then, of course, there are serious impacts upon the individual and upon that member of the public.

We need the complaints mechanism; we need it to work well. We do not need to have systems which bog down, and you make a compliant and you are two years finding out what happened to your complaint. By refining the process itself, will lead to expediencies. The same as the minister was dealing in the media yesterday with trying to create efficiencies in the justice system in terms of the courts, particularly the Provincial Court. This will, I would suggest by making these changes, lead to more efficiencies in the complaints process.

The filings, as well; I noticed here there are all kinds of disclosure requirements that the Law Society, in addition to the complaints issue, that if the public want to find out certain things, you can now access it quite easily. Instead of our operating what appeared to be a secret society, if people want to know now, they can ask. If they ask, they will get an answer, and that is the way it should be.

I know one time, of course, people think you are above questioning and you should not be asked anything. Simply because you are a lawyer, they figure: Oh, well, you must know. We cannot question that person's judgment or whatever. But that is not the case. I think that is becoming readily apparent now. To see that the Law Society will not be operating as a society unto itself, that it will be operating now with input, particularly when it comes from an administration point of view and when it comes from a discipline point of view with input from the public sector. That is the big advancement with this amendment and that is why we will certainly be speaking in favour of it and voting for it.

I look forward when we get to the Committee stage, if the minister can clarify these few points that I raised and we certainly await the vote on this matter.

Thank you.

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

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

I do want to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 22, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act.

There are a few points that I would like to make. It is interesting that in this session of the House we have a number of acts that we are dealing with that have to do with self-governing bodies. We have already passed the Embalmers and Funeral Directors Act. We passed an act with regard to architects self-governing themselves, and now we have the amendments to the Law Society Act. It is not a new act; it is an amendment to the act.

I know the minister has pointed this out, but I would like to point it out again and speak a bit more specifically to it. He pointed out that there is a lot of language in this act that is very similar to the legislation covering other self-governing bodies. In actual fact, we have a bit of a formula. I think that is really good because having a formula means that there is no elitism in the legislation. For example, when you are talking about the whole issue of complaints and the process that is involved with complaints, the setting up of the complaints authorization committee, how the complaints are dealt with, the adjudication tribunal, all of these pieces that are in the formula are there for everybody.

The formula is the same for embalmers and funeral directors, it is the same for architects, it is the same for lawyers and it is the same for all groups who are self-governing bodies. I want to point that out, particularly when the minister talked about section 51.(3), where the lawyers can - if all of the process internal to the society fails in a complaint process, they then can go to Trial Division with their complaint and have a judge make the final ruling. That is part of the formula that exists.

Those sections are also in Bill 11, which we are currently discussing in the House. We have gone through first reading - gone through second reading, actually. Bill 11 also allows for that for embalmers and funeral directors. If the complaint procedure inside of the association is not satisfactory for the person who has been accused, that person can then go to Trial Division. That is part of the formula, and it is an important part of the formula. I think what the amendments do is that the amendments to the Law Society Act treat lawyers and their self-governance in the same way as the other groups of self-governing professionals. So, it puts everybody on an equal footing. You do not have one group being treated differently from another and it breaks down the sense of elitism. I think that is extremely important.

The same way with another section that the minister spoke to when the minister presented the act and that had to do with the section where there can be a publication of names of a person who has been found errant in his or her duties as a lawyer. If the person has been found errant and if there has been a suspension, then there can be a publication. The minister referred to the fact that maybe there would be some lawyers who may not like that, maybe members of the Law Society, and he said perhaps they would find it draconian; but, the thing is, that is also part of the formula. That is there as well in the legislation for the embalmers and funeral directors and for other self-governing bodies.

In preparing for this week, for example with regard to Bill 11, I had to speak to some people within Government Services with regard to the some of the wording that was in Bill 11. That is when I learned, in talking with the staff of the Government Services Department, that is when I learned about the fact, in actual fact, we have this formula for groups who are self-governing, and there is actually a staff person inside of Government Services, and that is that person's job, to overlook the legislation for self-governing bodies. So, I think it is quite right.

There is one thing that came up when I was looking at Bill 11, and it is also true for the Law Society Act, and I met with some of the staff from Government Services to discuss it. Actually, I thank the Minister of Government Services for getting that set up, but what I learned in talking to those people also relates to this bill; because I was picking up on the fact that in Bill 11, with regard to embalmers and funeral directors, that there was no clear definition of what is professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming, no definitions around that language. Both of the acts, the Law Society Act of 1999 and the new bill that we are looking at for embalmers and funeral directors, they both use language that says that the association may set up a code of ethics. Bill 11 goes a little bit further in that may language.

The discussion we had, the discussion that I had with staff from Government Services, was that, if a piece of legislation is going to say that the self-governing group has the right to charge somebody with professional misconduct, or conduct unbecoming their position, that they also have an obligation to define what professional conduct is.

So we had a very interesting discussion, and I think in Committee of the Whole, when we discuss this bill and when we discuss Bill 11, we can have a bit more discussion on that. It seems to me that the formula may need a little bit of tweaking with regard to recognizing the need for an organization to have a code of ethics. What I am basing that on, because what was said to me first when I started this discussion was: Well, that seems a little bit - you are telling them what to do.

Well, you know, the Members of the House of Assembly were told what to do. The new legislation that was passed last June governing us here in the House actually told us, as a group here in the House of Assembly, that we had to put together a code of ethics. In actual fact, we have a subcommittee of the House now meeting, working on the code of ethics for Members of the House of Assembly. We were not told it would be good if the Members of the House of Assembly put together a code of ethics. We were told we had to put together a code of ethics.

What I am going to be asking the ministers to think about as we pass this bill and also Bill 11 is, while we may not change it at the moment, I think that we need to look at the formula reflecting not leaving putting a code of ethics together as something that would be nice to do, but, in actual fact, one has to do it. Because, if a piece of legislation is going to say that the society or the association actually has the right to charge somebody, if that is the word, with professional misconduct, or conduct unbecoming their state, then they have a responsibility to have a code and a definition that will help those charges to be adjudicated.

That was the main point I wanted to make and the reason, in particular, that I wanted to speak to this bill. I look forward to discussing a couple of those points a bit more in Committee of the Whole, and I also look forward to voting for this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General speaks now he will close the debate on second reading.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. members for their comments, their most helpful comments.

The Opposition House Leader has raised the issue of defined term. I will certainly try to find the answer to that, because I think it is a significant issue, or we could simply have members who are appointed forever. I will hopefully come back and have that answer soon.

I would ask that we move to second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 22, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999. (Bill 22)

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

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is moved and seconded that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain bills, and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Collins): Order please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Committee of the Whole on Bill 11, An Act Respecting Embalmers And Funeral Directors.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 11, An Act Respecting Embalmers And Funeral Directors.

A bill, "An Act Respecting Embalmers And Funeral Directors." (Bill 11)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to address some of the concerns that were raised in regard to second reading by members of the Opposition and also the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Leader of the NDP.

First, I would like to speak to the concern raised by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, in which she brought attention in regard to the ethics of conduct and having them clear in regard to the self-regulating bodies.

With respect to that issue of requiring the code of ethics to contain certain definitions, such as professional misconduct, or conduct unbecoming, the bill, as currently worded, leaves some flexibility for professional organizations to determine whether to have a code of ethics and what the content of that code should be. This is consistent with the principles of the original White Paper on self-governing occupations. With a number of acts that have already gone through this Legislature, it is consistent in regards to the word may and shall being in that legislation which gives that flexibility. It gives the ability to these bodies to determine the nature of the professional misconduct and conduct unbecoming, under section 15 and subsequent sections of the act with respect to the discipline.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I have had conversations with my colleague, or my staff has had conversations with my colleague, and I certainly acknowledge that the hon. member raised a very good point on whether or not we should impose a requirement for the code of ethics on self-regulatory occupation that includes some basis expectations.

So, as such, I would like to have this bill proceed today. I assure the hon. member that my department will be tasked to ensure this mechanism is passed in law, but I will also make a commitment that we will undertake a further analysis of the matter with a view to bringing it back to government for consideration on all self-regulating occupations. We will do that under an omnibus bill. Hopefully, we will have that review done by the fall session and bring it in and have a look at it. I will take that under advisement, but I would not want to hold up this bill today just because of the word, may, as compared to the word, shall.

Also, my hon. Member for Port de Grave raised some points that he wanted clarified. Certainly, we have been in conversation, my officials, with the hon. Member for Port de Grave. It is my understanding, as well, that it was clarified in regards to the points that he had made. It was clarified to him and he was comfortable with that. I think he expressed that to the hon. Opposition House Leader.

The first question he asked was in regards to the inspection itself, and having a notice of inspection. If you gave notice of inspection that would certainly defeat the whole purpose of the inspection in the first place. So, when we explained that and had a conversation about it, he was in full agreement of that.

In regards to - I think the other piece he had a question on was statute of limitations. To my understanding, this act will come into law this year. His question was pertaining to if there was some type of an infraction, say a year ago, could he go back? Well, this bill does not address that up front. While it is a new act, it is not intended to be retroactive. I do not believe, and certainly on advice, if there is any specific limitation to the legislation that would prohibit the board from referring and dealing with the investigation and the matter. He was quite pleased with that too, as well.

With that, I hope that I answered the questions of the hon. members, to the best of my ability. That is all I have to say.

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

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

I just want to respond to the minister really quickly, to say that - first of all, to thank him for arranging for the meeting that I had with four of his staff. We had a very good discussion around this issue of the language around code of ethics. I am very pleased with the recommendation, actually, that one of his staff came up with, with regard to - because they agreed with the position, or what I was putting forward, but we also knew that because this was part of a formula that had been part of the White Paper that the minister referred to, that you really do need an omnibus bill because you are not going to deal with every piece of legislation piece after piece after piece. So I am quite happy to vote for this piece of legislation and I am very pleased to know that the minister has committed himself, with his staff, to look at the issue that I raised.

So, thank you very much.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 39 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 39 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 39 inclusive carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act Respecting Embalmers And Funeral Directors.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendments?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to call for Committee consideration Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997.

CHAIR: Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997, is now called.

We are now debating Bill 21.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997." (Bill 21)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 21)

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to call for Committee consideration of Bill 22, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 22, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999." (Bill 22)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There is one issue that is still outstanding that I have to find an answer on. It was raised by the Opposition House Leader in section 42.(5) of the amendments to the Law Society Act, and I am not going to be in a position, Mr. Chair, to do that today.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra-minded.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's and Acting Deputy Speaker.

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 11 and Bill 21 carried without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered to the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 11 and Bill 21 carried without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

MR. RIDEOUT: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bills be read a third time? Now? Tomorrow?

MR. RIDEOUT: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bills ordered read a third time, presently by leave.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move third reading of Bill 11, An Act Respecting Embalmers And Funeral Directors.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 11, An Act Respecting Embalmers And Funeral Directors, 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 Embalmers And Funeral Directors. (Bill 11)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Embalmers And Funeral Directors," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 11)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With leave of the House I would like to move third reading of Order 7, Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997, 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 Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 21)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 21)

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That concludes the parliamentary work that we wanted to accomplish for this week. I thank my colleagues for their co-operation and participation.

I now move that the House on its rising do adjourn until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m. and that this House now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do now adjourn.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

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

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