The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: Today the following member's statements will be heard: the hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the hon. the Member for the District of Kilbride; the hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile; the hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port; the hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley; and the hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in the House today and recognize Jillian Keiley and Anita Best, two very accomplished artists, and residents of the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi who will be granted honourary doctorates of letters from Memorial University today and tomorrow at the spring Convocation ceremonies.

Jillian Keiley is the artistic director of Artistic Fraud of Newfoundland and Labrador, winner of the Canada Council's John Hirsch Prize, the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council's Emerging Artist Award, Calgary's 2006 Betty Mitchell Award for directing, and the 2004 Siminovitch Prize in theatre, the richest in Canadian theatre.

The jury for the Siminovitch Prize described her work as startlingly original and radically imaginative, and her as a visionary, innovative artist whose experiments with form and content have magical results for audiences and performers alike.

Most recently, Ms Keiley and Artistic Fraud were selected to perform Fear of Flight, a production created by Artistic Fraud and the fine arts students of Sir Wilfred Grenfell College, at the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver.

Anita Best has spent a lifetime exploring, cataloguing and celebrating the rural Newfoundland lifestyle and culture. In the process she has become one of the Province's most prominent traditional singers.

Ms Best has worked as an educator, archivist, folklorist, broadcaster and singer. A particular interest in oral history – songs and stories passed down through generations – led to her performing career. She has toured extensively as a storyteller and singer, made numerous television and radio appearances and added her voice to several Newfoundland recordings.

She is best known for two albums: The Colour of Amber, a collaboration with Pamela Morgan, was released in 1993, and Crosshanded, a collection of twelve songs for solo voice, followed a few years later. In these recordings and in her performances, Ms Best tends to forego the standard Newfoundland repertoire in favour of the lesser known songs and stories collected from around the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of this House of Assembly to join me in congratulating these two very talented and accomplished women on their honourary degrees and wish them all the best in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, on March 2, 2009, I attended the Goulds Lions Club thirty-second anniversary Charter Night.

At this event, the Lions Club paid honour to and presented an award to Genevieve Howlett for twenty-five years of dedicated service. Five other members: Bill Vincent, Jeffrey Hynes, Anne Marie Warford, Jamie Finn and Kim Walsh were inducted into the Lions Foundation of Canada. The Rookie of the Year was Anne Marie Warford and Charlie Phillips was declared the Goulds Lions Club Lion of the Year. Charlie is one of our valued employees here with the Province.

The highest award by Lions International is called the Melvin Jones Award. One of my constituents, Maureen Hynes, received the honour for 2009. Melvin Jones was the founder of the Lions movement. Goulds Lions Club is one of the most dedicated volunteer groups in the Goulds. Over the years, it has contributed thousands of dollars and thousands of hours of volunteer time for the good of our community.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating all award winners at the Goulds Lions Club thirty-second anniversary Charter Night.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile.

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

I rise today to recognize and congratulate Master Corporal Marty Francis, formerly of LaPoile, on his service to our country and his safe return from Afghanistan.

Master Corporal Francis is a fireman with the Royal Canadian Air Force who recently returned from a successful tour of duty at Afghanistan. Marty has been a member of the Air Force for fifteen years, he is thirty-five years of age. He was stationed in Afghanistan for eight months.

Marty is the son of Cecil and Margaret Francis of LaPoile, in the District of Burgeo & LaPoile. After his tour at Afghanistan, Marty spent some time with his parents in LaPoile where a dinner was held and a dance was held in his honour. Marty was left speechless by the tribute and says it is something that he will never forget and he is very grateful for. He also said he would gladly return to Afghanistan again if needed.

Marty is currently stationed in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in extending thanks to Master Corporal Marty Francis on his service to our country. All the best to Master Corporal Francis and his family.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on May 2 of this year the Western Newfoundland Regional Heritage Fair was held at Sir Wilfred Grenfell College in Corner Brook. This heritage fair provided the opportunity for our youth to express their academic learning and talent in a competitive setting. One hundred and eight-five projects competed for various awards such as the Parks Canada Award, RBC Aboriginal Heritage Award and HBC Explorer's Award to name a few.

The calibre of these projects was remarkable. The Corner Brook Museum had a plan to select a pair of student projects to display over the summer. They were so impressed, Mr. Speaker, that they decided to display ten of the projects and exhibits. This speaks volumes of the educational system in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are providing an environment where our children and youth can thrive and this heritage fair is a prime example.

In my District of Port au Port there were several youth who were presented with awards. Kody Budden of St. Thomas Aquinas School in Port au Port East for his Our Lady of Perpetual Help project, and Irha Sikander from Stephenville Middle School for her project on the Spanish Flu in Newfoundland and Labrador in 1918. Both received the Laurier Lapierre Award.

Trevor Snow of Stephenville Middle School for Rod Snow, and Daniel Benoit of Stephenville Middle School for Historic Lighthouses of Newfoundland and Labrador. Both were winners of the Corner Brook Museum Award.

Also, Logan Flynn of Lourdes Elementary for Newfoundland Fishery: Now & Then, and Nicholas Cole of St. Thomas Aquinas, Port au Port East, for Twillingate: Past and Present, were among the projects named the twenty best at the fair.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of this hon. House to join me in applauding all the participants of the heritage fair, and especially in congratulating the youth of my district for their efforts and talents that resulted in their award winning projects. I wish them continued academic success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to rise in this hon. House today and pay tribute to an outstanding citizen in the District of Humber Valley.

Mr. Norman Wheeler was born in the small community of Howley on January 29, 1933. He attended school there until the ninth grade. At that time, he left school to work with Bowater's so that he could provide financial support for his family. At the age of nineteen, he volunteered to fight in the Korean War.

Mr. Speaker, Norman received five medals during the Korean War, which included the Voluntary Medal, the Korean War Medal, the Peace Keeping Medal, the United Nations Medal, and the Queen's Jubilee Medal.

After the war he met with his wife, Ruby Legge of Deer Lake, and they had two children. He was then employed by the Department of Highways.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Wheeler is now retired but still actively volunteers with the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 3, in Deer Lake. He has held a number of executive positions, including honorary secretary and vice-president. Mr. Wheeler also has received a Service Award with the Royal Canadian Legion and has been made a Lifetime Member of the branch in recognition of over fifty years of service.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in formally recognizing this outstanding veteran who continues to serve his community and country.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a bright young lady with a bright future in the health care field. I would like to recognize Meghan Matthews of Summerside, Bay of Islands.

Mr. Speaker, Meghan recently graduated from the Bachelor of Nursing (Collaborative) Program at the Western Regional School of Nursing. There were a total of forty-seven students in the 2009 graduating class.

On May 15, Meghan was awarded the Western Memorial Regional Hospital Clinical Proficiency Award. This award is given to a member of the graduating class who has consistently demonstrated theoretical competency and excellent clinical performances throughout the program. The award was presented by Dr. Christopher Healey, Chief of Staff.

Mr. Speaker, in 2008 Meghan was also awarded the Western Health Academic Achievement Award, presented to a third-year student who is recognized for the highest academic achievement.

Mr. Speaker, Meghan continued to be on the Dean's List throughout her studies at Memorial University of Newfoundland from 2005-2009.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members here today to recognize Meghan's achievements and, rest assured, another bright light will be overseeing our health care throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, while June is still a few days away, I felt it was important to take this opportunity to rise in the House and recognize June as Seniors Month in our Province.

This time provides an important opportunity to acknowledge and recognize the incredible contributions and diversity of our seniors. Every day in Newfoundland and Labrador and across the country, seniors work, learn and contribute. The wisdom, skills, and abilities of seniors from our Province are felt in homes and communities, and impact people of all ages and backgrounds.

Seniors participate in town councils, band councils, church committees, service clubs, community development initiatives, educational institutions, business endeavours, and the list goes on and on.

Mr. Speaker, through our Provincial Healthy Aging Policy Framework, our government made a commitment to honour those contributions by creating a truly age-friendly Province. In support of this work, our government has created an office with a very focused priority: Aging and Seniors, and it is my pleasure to be the minister responsible for that office. In collaboration with the Provincial Advisory Council on Aging and Seniors and the Ministerial Council on Aging and Seniors, together with the inter-departmental working group, this policy framework is now being rolled out.

On fundamental way to support an age-friendly Province is to create a culture of respect where we see and recognize the value and worth of the seniors of our Province. It is in this spirit that our government was proud to announce the Seniors of Distinction Awards in January of this year.

The Seniors of Distinction Awards were created to honour and celebrate the priceless contributions and achievements and diversity of Newfoundland and Labrador seniors. Mr. Speaker, the interest in this awards program was phenomenal, with seniors being nominated from all across the Province. As the Minister Responsible for Aging and Seniors, I look forward to announcing the first recipients of this annual award program during a ceremony later in June.

In recognizing seniors, our government has also launched Ageless, a social marketing campaign that promotes the positive images of aging. I encourage my fellow colleagues to wear their buttons, which will be distributed a little later, which were created as part of this campaign to help mark Seniors Month.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I encourage the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to reflect on the value and contributions of the seniors in their lives and to make every effort to honour and to acknowledge those valuable contributions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

There is no doubt that seniors do make a very valuable contribution to our communities as leaders, as mentors, as volunteers. They are extremely valuable, not only for what they contribute in terms of their activities that they are involved in but their knowledge and their experience that they bring to this. A lot of it, as I say, mentoring other people, is very, very important in our society.

We even have a couple of seniors in our House of Assembly here, so there is no doubt that just because you meet the magic number of sixty-five doesn't mean that you are still not working, involved, and invaluable contributors to our democratic process.

For example, President Ronald Reagan became President of the United States when he was sixty-nine years of age, and he is acknowledged as probably one of the best Presidents that the United States has ever had. So, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the citizens of our Province who bear that honourable distinction of being seniors do indeed need to be appreciated.

Right now, seniors are the fastest growing population segment in Canada; 4.2 million Canadians are over age sixty-five. In the next twenty-five years that will double to 9 million people. We had 11.6 per cent of all Canadians in the year 2000 who were sixty-five years of age and plus. By the year 2021, which is only a few short years away, there will be 22 per cent plus of our population that are seniors. That is a 94 per cent increase in some twenty years, so you see where we are heading. They will make an even more valuable contribution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am really pleased to stand today and respond to the minister, and I thank him for the advance copy of his statement.

Mr. Speaker, I don't mind naming myself. I am one of them. If anybody else wants to name themselves, they can. I hope that as the campaign goes on and positive images of aging become part of the campaign, maybe some of us old fogies here in the House could be part of the image of aging, I put out to the minister, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, the contribution of seniors is something we always have to acknowledge, and it is not just because they have been at it for a long time, because they have, but it is also because of the experience and the knowledge they have gained.

I think the minister, in mentioning the new Ageless campaign - that is important also in light of the campaign that government is participating in on raising awareness on senior abuse. I think senior abuse does shock us from a number of perspectives. One is that we can't imagine somebody wanting to have power over seniors as they become possibly disabled as they get older. Not all do, but some do.

Mr. Speaker, the House will be closing soon and, unfortunately, we have not yet received from the Department of Health and Community Services the long awaited report on long-term care and community support strategy, which obviously is something that is important to seniors. I say to the minister, that I look forward, even with the House closing, to hearing about this report, hopefully before the House opens again.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to acknowledge and congratulate two of our Province's talented young film-makers, who have recently had their films screened at the 62^nd Annual Cannes Film Festival in France.

Crackie, a feature film written and directed by Sherry White and produced by Jennice Ripley and Rhonda Buckley, was featured at the festival on May 14th and 20th as part of Telefilm Canada's Perspectives Canada screening series.

In addition, The Hall, a short film written and directed by Stephen Dunn, a Ryerson University student, and native of Newfoundlander and Labradorian, was also screened on May 18th during a Short Film Corner series at Cannes.

The film industry in Newfoundland and Labrador is filled with talent that has been recognized locally, nationally and internationally. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that Newfoundland and Labrador feature film, Down to the Dirt, was also screened at Cannes last year.

With the screening of Crackie and The Hall at this year's festival, the investment by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and its agencies in the development and marketing of local film projects is clearly paying off. We are a presence on the international film scene. Ms White and Mr. Dunn, along with their production teams, are to be commended for their outstanding achievement.

I would be remised if I did not mention a short film called Countdown, directed by Jordon Canning, which was selected as one of the top ten finalists in the 2009 National Film Board/Cannes Short Film Corner online competition. While that film was not screened at Cannes this year, to have been a finalist in the online competition is an achievement in itself.

Mr. Speaker, in the past five years, from 2004 to 2008, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has invested over $17 million in film production activity. Most importantly, this investment has, in turn, enabled another $51 million to be leveraged from other public and private sources, resulting in a total production activity of over $68 million.

And this year, Mr. Speaker, is shaping up to be a banner year for local film production. Tax credits included, Budget 2009 investment is expected to total about $7.7 million - due in large part to the filming of a new, hour-long CBC television series, the Republic of Doyle.

This is indeed an exciting time in our local film industry, Mr. Speaker, and I invite all members of this House to join me in congratulating the young filmmakers featured in Cannes, and to wish them well as they move forward in their film careers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

We indeed as well in the Opposition would like to congratulate these individuals who are involved in the film industry. Not only has the local film production increased dramatically in the past number of years, but in terms of showcasing what they do produce. It is obvious now that we are having an impact on the national and on the international scene.

Even the title of course is good for a Newfoundlander and Labradorian. The word crackie, I mean that sounds like something that came right from the bay. We call a lot of people out my way that.

Anyway, a couple of the actors that the minister did not mention but involved in that film of course was Mary Walsh, a well-known actor from our Province here. Cheryl Wells from Stephenville is acting in that movie Crackie. Joel Hynes from Calvert, Newfoundland is also involved in that particular film. He was in the film last year which was shown there, as the minister says Down to the Dirt, but he is also acting in this movie now called Crackie. So it is great to see. In addition to the Rick Mercers of the world, which are comedic actors and so on, which have certainly made a presence in the national scene, in our film industry we are also carrying and blazing the same types of trails. It is a great initiative that the government supports these individuals. We have lot of talent and we are finally beginning to see now that it is being showcased worldwide.

Thank you.

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

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

I am delighted to join with the minister in extending congratulations to our hardworking artists. We have an amazing output when it comes to talent in this Province, when you think of our small population, and to have so many people in the film industry, so many artists having been featured in one way or another over the last two years in Cannes is quite remarkable.

I commend the government on its increased funding for the film industry, but for everyone of these artists who has managed to get to this point at Cannes, there are so many more dozens, dozens and dozens behind them who are struggling in the industry and struggling to make money as they also try to be creative and to become artists.

So I encourage the government to add to the funding that it is doing by adding more money to the arts council to be able to support the individual artists as they pursue these pursuits.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, once again one of our Province's post-secondary students has been recognized for a national award. Mr. Michael Smart, a graduate from the College of the North Atlantic's Corner Brook campus, is the winner of the 2008-2009 Fourth Class Student Award. The award is given by PanGlobal, a national publisher of training materials specific to the power engineering occupation. It recognizes excellence in achievement and is highly sought after by almost forty colleges across Canada which submit student names for nomination.

The first place winner, Mr. Speaker, is chosen by combining in-school marks with the student's results in the national standardized examinations. Michael had a combined average of 89.5 per cent – the highest in the country. The award consists of a $1,000 cash prize, plus travel and accommodations to attend the award presentation, which was held earlier this week in Montreal. A book contribution in Michael's name, Mr. Speaker, will also be made to the college's reference library.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Smart joins a long list of post-secondary students and graduates from this Province who are recognized nationally and internationally for their knowledge, skills and innovation. For example, next month an earth sciences team from Memorial will represent Canada at an international competition called the Imperial Barrel Award. A student from Grenfell College represented Canada at the World Water Forum in Istanbul in March. Students in Free Enterprise – or SIFE Memorial – will represent Canada at the international world cup, and hopefully bring home the first place prize for the second year in a row. And the legendary Eastern Edge robotics team, comprised of students from Memorial, the Marine Institute, College of the North Atlantic and for the first time this year a student from Academy Canada, are consistently the team to beat at the annual international robotics competition.

We truly have a lot to be proud of, Mr. Speaker. As these few examples show, our post-secondary institutions are preparing our students for success, not just nationally but internationally. They can compete with the best and come out on top.

To support our students we continue to make unprecedented investments in our post-secondary system. In Budget 2009, an additional $21.1 million was allocated for Memorial, while College of the North Atlantic will see an increase of $8.3 million. In fact, Mr. Speaker, funding for our post-secondary institutions has increased by 77.6 per cent over the past seven years - a clear indication that our government is committed to an affordable and accessible post-secondary education system that is second to none.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this hon. House, I offer sincere congratulations to Michael Smart, and best wishes as he pursues his chosen career.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the Minister of Education for an advance copy of his statement and to say that we in the Official Opposition want to congratulate Michael as well on receiving the fourth-class student award this year and to know that there is a tremendous amount of competition through forty-some-odd colleges throughout our country.

It is only this week, Mr. Speaker, we saw other competitions. Other ministers mentioned Skills Canada this week, how our young people in the high school level are doing. So I guess it is just continuing on to the post-secondary facilities as well. I cannot help but say outside the education we have other people who are making a tremendous name nationally and internationally, and that is our own Dan Cleary. We saw him again last night, the tremendous job that he is doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I know this statement today is about post secondary and we have to give credit to this individual and also to all the other competitions that are mentioned in this statement, to come forward in the next few days and weeks.

It is good to see government continuing funding such initiatives but we also have to recognize the teachers and the coaches who accompany those individuals. We have to pay tribute to them and to all the students of whatever level it may be.

In closing, I want to just congratulate Mr. Smart and wish him all the best in his future endeavours and to all those who will be participating in other venues as the time goes by.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I am happy to join with him in congratulating Michael Smart on his award in power engineering, reflecting the highest achievement in the country. It is a marvellous achievement and I am sure this young man must feel very proud, and he should.

I agree with government that there is a growing list of post-secondary students and graduates in science and engineering who are excelling nationally in their fields. Just like the artists we noted a few minutes ago, we are excelling in many fields in this country and internationally. I am definitely glad to see the increased funding for post-secondary institutions and students that has gone on over the last seven years. The increases are partly making up for the long period beginning in the 1990s when post-secondary institutions experienced serious cutbacks. I am sure the minister is aware that, as much as money has been going in over the last few years as our revenues have increased, institutions like Memorial are still catching up and are seriously still underfunded because of the past underfunding. They continue to have serious funding needs, and students are still incurring high debts, so I hope that government will continue to work with the post-secondary community to address these issues.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

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

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

Given that the House may be closing fairly soon, we have questions from a number of areas.

Mr. Speaker, when it is necessary to remove a child from parental care in this Province there are several placement options. When foster care or group homes are not suitable or available, individualized or Alternate Living Arrangements, known as ALAs, are often used. The ALA services are delivered to the children through home support agencies.

I ask the minister: Is there a set of provincial government standards that ensures that these agencies are following best practices in residential care?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, there are typically three types of issues for children who would go to an ALA placement. That would be children in sibling groups where it would be otherwise difficult to find a foster home to take the group of children. Sometimes it would be children with complex needs who go to an ALA type setting prior to going into possibly a treatment centre or a therapeutic foster home outside the Province. Sometimes ALAs are used for children who do not have a foster care placement but would be easily put into the typical foster care home once one becomes available.

At this time, the ALA arrangements that have been set up and the policies that guide them have been set up by the regional health boards as opposed to a provincial policy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Personal care homes in the Province are licensed. That is, the regional health authorities can go in, assess the home, establish the requirements, and on an annual basis renew the licence for the home based on that assessment. Regional health authorities have been asking for the same type of licensing for the ALA homes; yet, government has not put the legislation in place to make this happen.

I ask the minister: When are you going to implement this legislation to licence ALA homes?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, there are quite a few differences between an ALA and a personal care home, just based sometimes on the temporary nature of an ALA that would be in response to probably being set up to accommodate a sibling group, as opposed to being a home that is established that we use on a regular basis.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, this government certainly feels there needs to be more focus in the area of Child, Youth and Family Services and, as a result, in our recent budget announcement we have certainly developed the new department that will focus solely on Child, Youth and Family Services.

We go back to the clinical review, and although it did not specifically address ALAs there is certainly a need for legislative review, which will be happening by this new department. We will certainly review the legislation that guides the activities of the Child, Youth and Family Services, and we will certainly be doing a comprehensive review.

So any legislation that is either in place that may need to be amended, or any new legislation that needs to come forward, to be able to assist us to have a more child focus on our Child, Youth and Family Services, we will certainly be doing that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, concerns have been expressed over the qualifications to work in an ALA. We understand that there are people working with these high-risk children who do not even have basic level training, such as first aid, non-violent crisis intervention, and suicide intervention.

I ask the minister: What is your department doing to ensure that only qualified people are working with our most vulnerable children?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, there would be a number of people who would work with children who are in an ALA setting.

The case manager, the person who oversees the case, would be a registered social worker, and registered in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. In addition to that, based on the specific needs, there could also be involved in any particular case a child psychologist or a psychiatrist. There could be a paediatric nurse or there could be a medical doctor, so there are many people who are members of any particular case management team who would be qualified to provide intervention or to be able to provide input into the case plan, based on their expertise.

Mr. Speaker, certainly, there are also requirements with regard to foster homes and the PRIDE program that our foster parents need to have completed in order to become foster parents.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to make the point that with any team that supports any child who is removed from the home, there certainly would be registration within their professional field, and they would be part of that team.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, it is a requirement, according to the Child, Youth and Family Services, that a criminal record check be part of the process in order to be hired as a caregiver for children in this Province. We know that children with criminal convictions have been working with our children at risk for almost two months before the criminal record check was completed.

I ask the minister: Does government feel it is acceptable that people with criminal convictions are able to access children in ALAs in this manner, and what do you intend to do about it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that there were issues that came forth from Labrador with allegations that there were people with criminal records working with children in ALA settings. The information that I was provided by my officials also indicated that there were no individuals working in the ALAs who did have criminal records, although that allegation did come forward.

I had asked my officials about that; they confirmed with me that the individuals who were working in the ALAs in the particular place where the allegation came forward did not have criminal records.

Mr. Speaker, it is a requirement that is there and it is my understanding that requirement is being followed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Based on recent statistics, a significant number of children in care in Labrador are largely Aboriginal; yet, there is no cultural component to their ALA.

I ask the minister: Do you intend to do anything to address this shortcoming, and when could we look forward to seeing something being done?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the questions put forward by the hon. member certainly highlight some of the deficiencies in the system and certainly exemplify why this government has decided to have a new department for Child, Youth and Family Services.

There are many gaps in services. We had the Clinical Services Review, which will provide the basis for change, but we also note - and it was in the Abell report - that there are no quick fixes to this issue, either, and that it is going to take a number of years for us to bring the system to where it needs to be.

One thing that is particularly important is that when we deal with Aboriginal children we do have cultural sensitivities and we are able to provide a cultural component to their care, whether it is foster care, ALA, or out-of-the-Province care.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, I have also had correspondence from the Innu Nation. They want to be able to look at child protection issues and the child welfare system in an attempt, possibly, to be able to take over responsibility for those services. When I am in Labrador, I certainly have intentions of meeting with representatives from the Innu Nation but we feel strongly that the Aboriginal component is absolutely important.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Energy drinks are meant to supply mental and physical stimulation for a short period of time. They are not to be confused with sports drinks, which rehydrate the body. Health Canada cautions that children under eighteen, pregnant women or breastfeeding women, should avoid energy drinks. Possible side effects from energy drinks include nausea, vomiting and heart irregularities.

I ask the minister: Has government considered any legislated restrictions on energy drinks for young people in our Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is not something that is under active consideration at this time, Mr. Speaker, but the member opposite raises a valid point. Obviously, we need to be very cognisant of the jurisdiction that the federal government has in regulating various products, food products and others in the country. Provincial regulations and guidelines should be in sync with what we have federally but it is not something that is under active consideration, but I will have officials in my department review the issue and report back to the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, according to health officials energy drinks are loaded with caffeine and other herbal extracts. Nutritionists worry about children becoming addicted. A person would have to eat five-and-a-half chocolate bars or drink four cans of cola in one sitting to ingest the same amount of caffeine found in just one can of these energy drinks.

I ask the minister: What research has been done in this Province? It is obviously becoming a problem. What research has been done or what is intended to be done to determine the impacts of these drinks on our children in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, as a government we have made some significant strides in recent years as a part of our wellness strategy to ensure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly our children, fully understand the value of nutrition. Some of the things we have done in our new school food guidelines, some of the things we have done as a part of our Healthy Students, Healthy Schools initiative, all with a view, Mr. Speaker, to create a better understanding in our society about the value of nutrition, the value of making appropriate choices about the food you eat, the liquid you drink, the level of physical activity that you enjoy. So, Mr. Speaker, as a part of our overall wellness strategy, as a government I think we have become very cognisant of the impacts of making appropriate lifestyle choices on people's health and well being, and we will continue to make those kind of strategic investments.

In areas with respect to the kinds of products that are being licensed to come into the market and the regulations around food products, Mr. Speaker, is a federal jurisdiction, but as I said a second ago, we are not currently doing any research in this particular area but our regulation in this Province needs to be in sync with the federal (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I say that it is obvious that the government has no understanding that this issue is current, this issue is relevant. Tobacco is also a licensed product but we also took undertakings and moves in this Province to make sure of how they were dealt with by our young people and in certain public places. While these drinks are not being sold on public property, students are bringing these drinks to school. Teachers have raised concerns about the growing popularity of these drinks and their effects on students. Teachers say there is a spike in student behavioural problems and they are unable to maintain attention in class.

I ask the minister: How much of a problem, indeed, are these energy drinks causing in our classrooms, and are you prepared or considering a ban on these drinks in our schools?

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, to the member's question on the energy drinks. We do have food guidelines that have been developed in keeping with Canada's Food Guideline and in consultation with the Department of Health. We certainly do discourage the use of those kinds of drinks. We have not brought in a regulation or a rule that prevents those drinks from going on school property, as a government. Rules of that kind of nature would be the responsibility of the school boards in consultation with individual schools, but there is nothing whatsoever to restrict an individual school council from having a rule that would prevent it. I might say there is nothing to prevent an individual parent from talking to their children and discouraging them from bringing things of that nature to school.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I think it is quite evident to everybody that parents do in fact pay a key role in educating their children. However, you cannot slough this off to the school boards. The government, I would suggest, has an onus on them as well to inform people. Many parents may not be aware of the contents of these energy drinks or the effect these drinks may be having on their children.

Is government considering any kind of educational campaign or marketing campaign to make parents and citizens of our Province aware of the potential hazards of these energy drinks?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I am glad the member opposite prefaced his question by saying we are getting to the end of the session because we are scraping the bottom of the barrel with questions today, I say, Mr. Speaker.

It is an extremely important topic that the member opposite is raising, though, at the same time. Is that having an awareness and an understanding of the products that we eat, the products that we drink is an extremely important thing for all of society to consider. As I said a moment ago, that is the very reason, Mr. Speaker, that we are investing millions of dollars, on an annual basis, in our wellness campaign to ensure that we create a better understanding of the importance of making those lifestyle choices, the importance of educating our children. That is why we are doing tremendous work in conjunction with the Department of Education and some of the kinds of things we are doing with our students. It is the reason why we engage in social marketing campaigns, to create an understanding of parents so they can educate and advise their children and provide guidance, Mr. Speaker, but as I said a moment ago –

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

On May 19, government announced a $35 million package to cover the severance for the former workers of AbitibiBowater.

I ask the minister: Were there any negotiations or consultations, prior to that announcement, with Services Canada or Revenue Canada to work out the EI and tax implications of distributing these funds?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, with the announcement that was made here a couple of weeks ago, it was indicated that we would be working with the unions representing the workers affected by the Abitibi closure to make sure that they had all of the information that they needed and all of the capacity that they would require to be able to address any issues that would be arising from the payment of the severance and the other benefits that government undertook to pay.

That committee is in place. They are doing their work. They are following through on questions that are being directed to them by their membership, and I am sure that the members are receiving the information that they need to make informed decisions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, most of these former workers are already signed up with Services Canada and are registered to receive EI. That means when and if these workers receive this government-sponsored severance package, it will impact upon how much and how long they continue to receive EI. In other words, it is possible for these workers to change from being recipients of EI to suddenly owing money back to EI the moment they receive these government-sponsored severance funds.

I ask the minister: What arrangements, if any, have been made with Services Canada to ensure that this government-sponsored severance package does not negatively affect the EI of these workers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in our discussions with the union leadership regarding government providing monies to the union to be able to meet the former obligations of AbitibiBowater, it was indicated that any of the impacts that would be felt upon workers, as would normally be felt had they received their severances and their obligations from AbitibiBowater, would have to be met, would have to be understood that people may have some impact. They understood that. They understood that it may happen should they receive their severances from AbitibiBowater. There are no issues with that, that I am aware of, and things are progressing along and workers are happy, the unions are happy and everything seems to be going quite nicely out there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, there are allowances in the tax system to shelter portions of severance payments into RRSPs and related instruments; however, these allowances assume that funds are coming directly from the employers and are received directly by instruments controlled by the employee. In this case, the severance package funds are coming from government, not the employer, are then transferred to the union and then to an accounting firm, not directly to the employees' financial instruments.

I ask the minister: What arrangements, if any, has government made with Revenue Canada to ensure that the workers are not hit with an unnecessary and onerous tax bill as a result of the government-sponsored severance?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, the government, in consultation with the union leadership, is in the process of determining the way in which this will flow. So, the assumption that the hon. member just made is exactly that, an assumption. That process has not yet been finalized.

The second point which he raises relative to sheltering of money and so on, as I indicated, we have provided an undertaking to the union leadership that we will provide to them whatever assistance they need from financial managers, from actuaries, anything that they need like that, accounting firms, to be able to deal with these issues, and the union is moving forward, quite happy with the arrangement that has been made and quite happy that government has stepped up and made sure that they receive the obligation that they should have received from AbitibiBowater.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It seems clear that government has made and announced another decision related to AbitibiBowater without considering and thinking through all the implications.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Minister, at the end of the day, once all the consultations are done that you are talking about, will government compensate or otherwise shelter the former AbitibiBowater workers from any unintended negative impacts regarding EI and tax liabilities which might occur as a result of this government-sponsored severance package?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to that question is obvious. Government has provided $35 million of sheltering to the workers of Central Newfoundland and Labrador -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: - and government is very happy to be able to provide that sheltering.

As I have indicated in my previous answers, we are working with the union executive, who are working with the affected members, to ensure that this flows as easily and nicely and as co-operatively as it can, and we will continue to do that kind of work, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, last session in the House of Assembly we highlighted the fact that Newfoundland and Labrador is one of the last provinces to bring forward midwifery legislation.

The Minister of Health and Community Services committed, at that time, to bringing forward umbrella legislation that would address this concern, as well as licence other health professionals in other disciplines.

I ask the minister: What is the status of this legislation now, and when can we expect to see it tabled in the House?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the member opposite would reflect on the comments I made in the House, I think I indicated that some time before the end of 2009 – which we are only halfway through now – that we would anticipate having that legislation brought before the House.

It is a significant piece of work, Mr. Speaker, to look at the regulation of a number of disciplines that we currently do not have regulation for, especially when we are trying to bring it together in one umbrella piece of legislation.

Significant work has been done, significant progress has been made, and from the discussions I have had in recent weeks about the status of the work in progress we are on target to have that introduced in the House by the fall session.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

There are other health disciplines that have contacted our office, also asking for this umbrella legislation. One of these groups is the Newfoundland and Labrador acupuncture association. Even though this is a growing practice in our Province, these professionals have no legislation governing their activities. We even have a private college that offers a three-year program on acupuncture in this Province, but these graduates do not have to meet any provincial certification requirements upon graduation.

I ask the minister: Are you concerned that there are no standards whatsoever guiding the practice of acupuncture in the Province, and will these individuals be included under the umbrella legislation that you referred to?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: The member opposite has identified one particular group, but we have a number of professions. We made a commitment in this House very recently that we would have laboratory medicine also covered by legislation. We have speech language pathologists who are not yet regulated in this Province. We have x-ray and imaging technicians who are not. We have ultrasonographers who are not, and respiratory therapists who are not, so we have a fairly large number of people currently in practice in the Province who are not yet regulated.

Mr. Speaker, that was the reason – because some of these groups are fairly large, some more of them are relatively small - that is one of the reasons that we believed it was fundamentally important for us to develop an umbrella piece of legislation to ensure that we have not only those that are currently in practice covered, but as other disciplines emerge over time we will have the umbrella legislation to embody those in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, last year the Opposition raised questions in the House about the dysfunctional relationship within and between the Town of Portugal Cove-St. Phillips and its residents, and the minister assured that action would be taken. Yet, we know that no action was taken by the Department of Municipal Affairs and that all parties to the conflict feel let down by government.

I ask the minister: Why did you choose to take no decisive action on the Portugal Cove-St. Phillips file, despite the fact that directives from your department were breached?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Municipal Affairs, my officials and myself, met with the Town of Portugal Cove-St. Phillips and we raised the concerns with them that were brought to my attention. They were given a directive, and just this morning the mayor met with me in Portugal Cove-St. Phillips - and the town manager - to bring me up to speed to where they were, and it is almost to a resolution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess the minister must have been aware I was going to ask her the question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, since raising questions on problems with this municipal government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. BUTLER: Since raising questions on problems with municipal government, we have heard from many other municipal governments who have complained about the lack of due diligence and leadership from the Department of Municipal Affairs. Only today, Mr. Speaker, we learned of the resignation of the Mayor of Steady Brook.

With new municipal elections taking place this fall, will your department be adopting any new policies or procedures to ensure municipal councils can function effectively and take timely action when significant problems are identified and bogged down by council's work?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having great difficulty in hearing the questions that are asked.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, we did become aware last night of Mr. Dawson's resignation. We received a copy of the news release right after the town council meeting last night.

The department will continue to work with the Town of Steady Brook in order to move this forward, but Municipal Affairs officials are always aware and they are always there to assist councillors with any issues in their town.

I would like to go back to the member. I was not anticipating his question, but I would like him to know that we are on top of things in our department.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to my attention that out of the fourteen cardiac surgeries scheduled this week at the Health Sciences Centre only one was able to be completed due to a lack of available ICU beds. In January seventeen cardiac surgeries in St. John's were cancelled because there were not enough nurses. That means more than one-quarter of the scheduled surgeries were cancelled for that month alone. We have also heard of cancellations due to a shortage of anesthesiologists.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: Could he give us some concrete examples of what his department is doing to deal with this ongoing critical situation?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons that the member cited for some of the challenges we are having is the nursing issue, and she wants a tangible example. Well, let me share one with her.

We just recently, just a few days ago, in fact, negotiated very successful, averted a strike and negotiated the best collective agreement of any unionized group in the entire country, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador have a contract today second to none. They are among the best paid nurses in the entire country. They have benefits second to none in the entire country. That is a very tangible example, I say to the member opposite, of where our government has provided leadership and stepped up to the plate, Mr. Speaker, to address some of the critical issues that the nurses' union identified with respect to recruitment and retention of nurses.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows that that contract is not going to deal with the urgent situations now.

Mr. Speaker, last summer health authorities reduced elective services and closed beds during the summer as a way to deal with the shortage of nurses in the Province. We know nurses need to have vacations as well as all other workers. Eastern Health closed two long-term care units as Hoyles Escasoni last summer, we had maternity patients shipped around Central Newfoundland, and dialysis units temporarily closed in St. Anthony.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: What plans does this government have in place to deal with this summertime issue this summer, here and now, not in two years time?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I am glad the member opposite acknowledged that our health care workers need vacation. They work very long hours. They are dedicated individuals who make a big commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and they, together with all of us in this Province, deserve a periodic holiday, and many of them like to take that during the summertime when their children are out of school and the family can be together.

Ever since I can remember, and long before I was ever involved in the health system, which dates back to the early 1980s, the health organizations in this Province have always made adjustment in the summertime to accommodate nurses and other individuals who need annual vacation. So what we will experience in 2009, the summer of 2009, is the same thing that was experienced in the summer of 1985, 1981, 1979 and will probably be well into the future, Mr. Speaker, adjust the level of operation to facilitate the much needed and the much deserved vacations that staff need to take.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers have expired.

MR. KING: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education on a point of order.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With regret, I wish to make an apology to the House. In my member's statement I incorrectly named an individual as Michael Smart. In actual fact it was Michael Small, and I did recognize the error as I was doing the statement. It was a typographical error. I would ask it to be noted for the record and ask my colleagues if you would join me once again in ensuring that my error does not diminish the accomplishment of Mr. Small.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order, a point of clarification.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to section 26(5)(a)of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling four Orders in Council relating to funding pre-commitments for the 2010-2011 to 2012-2013 fiscal years.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: On March 3 of this year, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Health and Community Services received a report from Madam Justice Margaret Cameron as a result of the inquiry that she completed in the hormone receptor testing in the Province and I want to table for the members of the House and for the people of the Province a progress report on what we have been doing to date.

One of the recommendations in the report called for a full update by March 31, 2010 but during the last couple of months we have been able to initiate a number of actions and I want to be able to provide this interim report to the House while we continue to work on what will be a very aggressive agenda in the coming year, and I look forward to tabling another, much more complete report in March, 2010 that will outline significant progress, working towards those recommendations, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

In my capacity as Speaker, I hereby table the Public Tender Act Exception Report for the month of April, 2009.

Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motions.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

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

I take this, probably final opportunity during this sitting of the House to present a petition. I think it is my twelfth during this session on behalf of the people of South Western Newfoundland, in regards to the lack of dialysis services in that particular area of the Province, from Grand Bruit, down the coast to LaPoile, right on up to the Codroy Valley. Anyone who needs those services, of course, has to go to either Stephenville or Corner Brook at the present time. There is no question the need has been established, and of course if people can get these services and treatments in their own community that is what the goal is all about.

I have had some discussions with the Minister of Health, briefly, on this issue since I have been raising it here in the House. I am aware, and the minister is now aware that there is a study being undertaken, a report being compiled by the chief of staff of the Dr. L. LeGrow Health Centre in Port aux Basques, and a nephrologist at Corner Brook.

We know that the report would deal with issues of space, which we know that we do have in the LeGrow Centre, to place the operation. We do know, as well, that there is certain equipment that will be needed to do it, if you have a satellite operation. Of course, there has to be determination made as well, as to whether we have home dialysis or we have a satellite operation.

So, we are looking forward to the report being compiled quickly. We hope we get a faster response from the minister and the minister's office to the report that is being compiled than we have had in the past. Part of the problem here is getting people who are in the Department of Health to acknowledge that there is a need and to acknowledge and start to make the wheels turn to provide some solutions to solve the problem. Everybody is aware of it. The minister knows the problem is there. We would like to see some positive actions back to show that he is aware of it and that the department is aware of it and they are prepared to do something about it.

The people of South Western Newfoundland deserve no less better treatment than anybody else in this Province. Whether you are in Lab City, whether you are in Stephenville, Corner Brook or Grand Bank, the issues of travel and the area you have to travel, geographically is well known, and there is no reason why, if the cost can be provided for, the equipment can be provided for by the people of that area, the space is there, the training is there for the staff, there is no reason in the world why the people of that area of the Province should not avail and be given the opportunity to have the same services for dialysis as anyone else in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

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

MR. BUTLER: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to stand today with a petition, and I am going to present all the copies that I have now of the petition with regards to the Long Island causeway. I did not present any over the last three or four days because I was hoping other people I know who have some of those petitions might have presented them, but I will pass all the ones that I have in now. It seems like it is coming to the time of year when this may be my last opportunity for this session.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very important petition. It is signed by not only the people of Long Island, all the surrounding areas, the communities, whether it is Bishop's Falls, Grand Falls, all of those individuals know the needs and the concerns that the people have with regards to this issue. They had an excellent ferry service, in their minds, for some twenty-six years but they believe that particular service has been stripped away from them and now they have a joint service being shared with Long Island and Little Bay Islands.

In the prayer of their petition they mentioned that they would like to have a ferry service to replace what they have in existence at the present time, but their main concern is for a fixed link to the Island. As I mentioned before, there are many issues why they present this petition. It is because of medical reasons, transportation of their students. The last day I mentioned also with regards to the timeframe that it is for them to get an ambulance service - with the ferry service they had originally as versus the shared service. It increases from a half-an-hour of wait time up to approximately three or four hours.

The other issue they present is with regards to, there are approximately some 100 individuals who rely on a living from the sea and their product has to be transported, and with this shared service many times their product does not get off the Island and they have concerns with the quality of the product and so on.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people, not only on Long Island, I present this petition with all their families and friends in the various areas, and hopefully, government will go back to the commitment they made in 2003 that there would be a causeway built to Long Island. We ask that government will reconsider this and listen to the wishes of the people.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I would not want the government members, particularly the Minister of Health, to think that any of our problems have gone away, particularly the one concerning the clinic in Ramea. I have spoken on that as well, I think twelve times since this session.

The minister keeps talking about the recruitment and retention. The issue, of course, that we have in Ramea is that the facility is set to have two nurse practitioners. We only have one. So, 50 per cent of the required and dedicated workforce there does not exist. We have been trying to supplement it with LPNs and sometimes a nurse comes over from Burgeo to help out whenever possible, but that is not a stable service. That only happens when somebody voluntarily agrees to come from Burgeo. They are not required to, and Western Health cannot force them to do that, so they only come over when and if they feel like it. They have been trying to do their best, but obviously we need the other nurse practitioner.

The minister says that under the new nurses' deal, of course, he has talked about this recruitment and retention. Hopefully this is going to work in the case of Ramea, because as it currently is designed it will not work. The only nurse practitioner who can be recruited under the current process is that you have to be either a first-year graduate or you have to be from outside the Province.

Special circumstances require special needs; special needs require special solutions. If that program as it currently exists, of recruitment, is not working, we need to look at the possibility of not having it apply to rural Newfoundland and let nurses, for example, who might be in this Province, who are prepared to go to the Ramea area to work - why can't they avail of the recruitment process that exists?

By having such a narrowly-defined recruitment process you are hurting communities in rural Newfoundland, not only in Ramea but also in the community of François, also in the community of Grey River. They are subject, as it is, to very limited and unstable medical services. They only get it, for example, down the coast in Grey River and François, as a result of clinics on sometimes a bi-, tri-, or weekly basis. Quite often you could have a clinic set but if the weather is bad the clinic does not occur. Then they could be an extended period of time again; it could go for five or six weeks before somebody gets in there.

It is very urgent, it exists, and it can be solved if the Minister of Health and Western Health would turn their attention to this problem. Unfortunately, Western Health cannot act without the approval and consent of the minister.

The minister knows about this. Whenever he or someone in his department is prepared to deal with it, that is where the ball lays right now. Hopefully, they will pick the ball up and run with it so that the people of that area of the Province are not disadvantaged any more.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

Orders of the Day.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 7, second reading of a bill, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Rail Service. (Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 36, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Rail Service, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Rail Service." (Bill 36)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, that Bill 36 be now read a second time.

Bill 36, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Rail Service, I know it is something that probably caught people here in the House, and probably if anybody is paying much attention to us it might have caught them a little bit off guard in the general public.

I will tell you what it is not about, first of all. If anybody is under any illusion about us entering into any kind of an arrangement to rebuild the railway across the Island of Newfoundland then that is not what this is for, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TAYLOR: That may come as a disappointment to some people, but we do not plan on bringing back the Newfie Bullet, so any of the nostalgic types here can put that out of their mind.

Quite simply, Mr. Speaker, what this is about: in any jurisdiction, in any province where you have a railway or the possibility of a railway that operates completely within your boundaries, the responsibility for the regulation of that operation falls under the jurisdiction of the province.

I know people might look at this and say, well, why wouldn't we have had a Rail Service Act previously? Because we do have a railway operating in Labrador. The reason that we have not had to have a Rail Service Act like the one we are bringing forward here today, since we abandoned the railway across the Island, is because the railway that operates in Labrador and in Quebec, the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway, the QNS&L, operates across a provincial boundary. As a result of that, Mr. Speaker, it falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government and is regulated by Transport Canada through an authority provided in the federal government's Parliament.

What we have here in front of us today, Mr. Speaker, as a result of significant mineral deposits and exploration in Labrador, there is a possibility of one, two, or even three, railway services being established in Labrador, and it could come as early as this year - at least one – and, as I said, there may be upwards of three. We do not know for sure if it is going to happen; however, if it does happen, we have to have the legislative framework in place in order to enable us to have a regulatory regime to govern any such operation.

Mr. Speaker, that is basically what it is. If these rail services do, in fact, get constructed, they will be for the movement of goods to and from a mine site, and we would not anticipate that we would establish a full regulatory framework and actually get into the business of regulating any future railway development on our own.

If either one, or all of the possible railway constructions take place, or actually constructed in Labrador, we believe, and this legislation gives us the authority to do that, we would certainly try and negotiate an agreement, an arrangement with the federal regulators, Transport Canada, and have them regulate the railway on our behalf. That happens in other jurisdictions in the country.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is the nub of it. The Leader of the NDP e-mailed me a couple of times this morning actually and had - there were two issues that she raised and I will just speak to those here. I know typically you deal with them in committee on clause by clause issues, but in the interest of time I suppose.

Under section 14.(4) about halfway through, "…facilitate development of the natural resources or other resources of the provision…" is what is said there. Provision is a typo and it should actually say Province. We have already spoken to the Clerk about this and he is speaking to our Law Clerk or Legislative Council whatever, to see if we are able to deal with that after the legislation is already approved and drafted. Apparently it can be fixed. We do not need to propose any amendment to deal with that.

As well, again in section 14.(6)(b), the Leader of the NDP had a question there about the – "A contract entered into for the purpose of subsection (5) may (b) limit the liability of the company, its servants or agents, or exempt the company, its servants or agents, from liability otherwise existing under this or another Act or at common law, for damage arising out of the carriage of the passenger or goods under the contract."

Mr. Speaker, what the Leader of the NDP was inquiring about was, why would we want to limit the liability of the rail carrier? We are not proposing that we limit the liability of the rail carrier. What this clause is about, say for example, right now the rail service that runs the Quebec North Shore Labrador Railway Service between Lab City, Wabush and Sept-Iles. The operators of that rail service can enter into arrangements with other companies to carry goods for them on their behalf. If they enter into a contractual arrangement there, the QNSL railway may insist to the people who want to carry goods on their freight trains that they would not be held liable for any damage to those goods. It is a contractual arrangement between two companies and if they agree to it then we are not looking to intervene in that business-to-business transaction, basically.

It would have nothing to do with any, for example, environmental liability. We would not be proposing here that the government, for example, enter into an arrangement with a rail operator and that if there was a train derailment, for example, that their environmental liability would be limited. That is not what this is about. This is purely, if somebody builds a railway and if they decide to carry goods or passengers for somebody else - similar to when, I suspect, Oceanex hauls a container across from Halifax for some business, for Wal Mart for the sake of an argument. I do not know what the contractual arrangements are between Oceanex and Wal Mart, but it is conceivable that Oceanex might say to Wal Mart: Well, if we lose a container we are not liable for it. If they enter into a contract that says that with that type of language well that is between them. Somebody has to assume the liability, either the carrier, the person or the business that is looking to have something carried. This simply allows them to negotiate those types of contractual arrangements.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if there is much in the way of further clarification required. I do want to point out that this may not be needed at all. However, indications are that upwards of three rail services could be established in Labrador and they would be entirely within the boundaries of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. If that were to come to pass then we will have the legislative framework in place to enable us to do the appropriate regulation of any service that would be established.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I know I still have lots of time to talk, but I know everybody in the House knows that I am rather brief most days. So with that, I will thank the members for their patience and I will look forward to answering any further questions that members might have.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to take a few moments with regard to a few comments on Bill 36, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Rail Service.

I noticed there were quite a few who were a little disappointed, I guess, when the minister got up on his feet. We thought that the Newfie Bullet was going to be reinstated here in the Province, and I am sure many people would have looked forward to that. That was jokingly, and I am sure we all are familiar with the legislation that is put forward and the reasons for it.

The couple of comments that the minister made with reference to questions from the Leader of the Third Party, I don't see any problems with those. It is a correction and I think you gave an explanation for the one with regard to the contract between two different companies in regard to carrying goods.

The only thing I will ask: I notice from some of the notes that we received that they mentioned about construction to get iron ore to the port. The line also operates a weekly passenger service. I am just wondering: Does that come into our jurisdiction as well, the passenger part of it, or is that only on the Quebec side? If so, would that fit into the concerns that the hon. member of the NDP had with regard to the liability? Would that be between –

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: Okay. For instance, I understand that the rail does carry passengers. I was wondering: Is it only on the Quebec side that happens, or do passengers come into our jurisdiction here in the Province on that north shore line or whatever it is called?

I was wondering then: I guess the clause that the Leader of the Third Party mentioned, about the transport of goods was a contract between two companies, I guess that same clause would affect the individuals if there was damage or injury or anything to those individuals.

When I was doing some research on this, it was very interesting to note in the press release that was put out back on June 20, 1988, when the railway in this Province ended, the Premier at the time was Premier Peckford. As a matter of fact, our Lieutenant-Governor at the time was the international trade minister, Mr. Crosbie. It was interesting to note those facts and figures about the rail bed when it was here on the Island of our Province.

We know this piece of legislation, as the minister has outlined, is to deal with a totally different issue. This act, Mr. Speaker, is devised to give the Province the capacity to regulate railway activities within the provincial boundaries, if such activities should arise. I think the minister explained that to us.

We have learned also, through our research, that there is a possibility of three potential mining developments in Labrador. As was said, there were none for the Island portion of the Province, to date, that the department is aware of. In order to be ready to regulate, if this should happen, the department needs the legislation to guide them. I think what they are doing here is a very proactive venture and that will be taken care of once this piece of legislation is proclaimed.

We know that Iron Ore ships their product to Quebec and they are regulated. Most of it I think is federally. My understanding is, that if you are in excess of thirty-five kilometres of required railway service then you are under federal guidelines but if it is less than thirty-five kilometres then you are under provincial jurisdiction. In order for that to happen the Province consulted with other provincial jurisdictions that do have railway service to bring forth the current act.

Mr. Speaker, really, as the minister stated, there is not all that much to say on this. We support this piece of legislation, and the only question I have is with regard to the passenger service that may come into our Province by this railway link coming in from Quebec to Newfoundland and Labrador.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will just take my place and just say that we do support Bill 36.

Thank you.

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

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

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak to Bill 36.

Obviously, even with just one small piece of rail in the Province I think it is important that we have a bill in place to cover what we have. I am aware of the fact that the minister and the department are bringing this act forward because of an anticipation of potential mining developments in Labrador and that there actually are, currently, three applications in to the Department of Environment and Conservation regarding potential mining operations in Labrador and rail lines are connected with them. I think it is absolutely essential that we do have an act in place that gives the government the responsibility for making sure that these rail lines are safe, that these rail lines are environmentally sound in terms of the way in which they are constructed et cetera. Although at the moment there is nothing planned for the Island portion of the Province, who knows what is down the road?

We may joke about the Newfie Bullet and we all know that it is not the Bullet as the Bullet would help us if it came back, but in the future as we look at the rising price of oil and the ongoing costs for maintaining roads, we might be forced some time down the road to look again at a rail service for transport of goods across this Island, in particular. I think it is actually a serious consideration. Every now and again, I will get somebody, when I am out around the Province, say to me: Ms Michael, do you ever think about what could happen? Is it possible to even think about a rail line coming back to the Province, and especially to the Island portion? So, I do not think it is a wild idea. It is something that I think is certainly possible in the future, and especially as we are looking at climate change and trying to come up with cleaner forms of transportation. They have done so well in Europe, and also in Asia, with electric trains for example. There are a lot of possibilities and there are a lot of potentials.

I would like to come back, though, Mr. Speaker, to the section that the minister did speak to because of a phone call that I made to his department, and that is clause 14(6)(b). I guess it is to echo what was said by my colleague from Port de Grave. I know the minister is writing this down now as I say it, because he still has not totally taken my concern away, because what my concern is, is that the act is saying that, "A contract – actually it says a contact, that is another typo – "A contract entered into for the purpose of subsection (5) may…(b) limit the liability of the company, its servants or agents, or exempt the company, its servants or servants, or agents from liability otherwise existing under this or another act or at common law, for a damage arising out of the carriage of the passenger or goods under the contract."

What my question is - and it is a legal question and I do not have the answer, because I am not a lawyer. I hope that the ministry could have gotten the legal answer on this. My question is: Is a contract even permitted under law to allow for exemption with regard to something that could be common law? I have memories of being told that contracts cannot take away somebody's rights. For example, if common law were to say that a passenger who gets injured on a train, if a contract says that passenger has no claim on the company, is that a common law right? Under common law, can somebody expect that they can go ahead and sue?

My question is a legal question. Can we actually say that a contract is allowed to do that, that a contract is allowed to make an exemption that tells somebody: even if common law says you have the right to sue, our contract says that you cannot do it? That is what my question is about. It really is a very serious question and I still do not have a clear answer. I did not get to speak to the ministry, so I do not think they fully understood what my concern was. I sent an email but I was not able to make contact. It is that question: Can a contract actually say that somebody cannot sue, because that is the implication of this one, and it is more passenger rather than goods that I am thinking about?

I can see, for example, a contract between two companies, the railway and another company who is contracting the railway, saying that the railway does not have any responsibility for goods, but does law allow a contract to say that the railway can be exempted, for example, from liability with regard to an individual being hurt? If the railway had that in the contract and if the company in contract with the railway were also to say that they have no liability, what happens to the rights of the passenger? That is the crux of what I am asking there, Mr. Speaker, and I will not belabour it. The rest of it looks fine.

There was one thing that I did want to point out and that is under section 12(2)(a), actually, which allows the minister to exempt the permit holder. If somebody has a permit for a railway, section 12(2)(a), which is an important section, gives powers to the minister, and the ministry, even after issuing a permit, may exempt the permit holder from the application of adopted provisions or from a regulation or part of a regulation made under section 15.

Section 15 is quite comprehensive and I am wondering, what was the intention? If these regulations are important regulations - and as I read them they certainly seemed to be important regulations - why would the minister have the power to exempt a permit holder from the regulations?

My concern about that is we see all the time, especially sometimes in municipalities, you see rules set up and then you see somebody come in with a plan, like in development, and they start giving exemptions to the plan. Even though there are regulations that say, no, that should not happen, and something else should not happen, exemptions happen. Then you go against what the regulations were about and what they were trying to achieve.

I have some concerns that the minister, without any criteria, would be able to say, at any point in time, that a permit holder would not have to abide by all of the regulations. It is a concern that I put out, and I think they are the major points that I wanted to raise, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works - and the Speaker has no problem with it, because really this is second reading of Bill 36, and we are doing Committee work in second reading - I looked across the House and I did not detect anybody objecting to the questions and answers, and talking about individual clauses, so I would assume that we are going to continue with the format that we have established.

We only have one bill today in second reading, and the Speaker has no problem, if that is what the members decide they want to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I know it is a little bit unconventional, what we are doing here, but the Leader of the NDP, as I said earlier, had forwarded a couple of questions and I thought it was probably just as expeditious, since I had an hour to talk, I figured it was just as easy to deal with it in the little bit of time that I was going to take there, and maybe save ourselves some time when we get into Committee. If it is still not answered satisfactorily when we move into Committee, I will endeavour to straighten it out there.

Mr. Speaker, back to the points that were raised by the Leader of the NDP and the Member for Port de Grave on section 14.(6)(b). It is my understanding, as for the existing movement of passengers on the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway, to the extent that that still occurs, and in a very limited way it takes place now, that component, the movement of people on QNS&L, is federally regulated, as the whole railway from Sept-Iles to Wabush is federally regulated.

What we are talking about here is, basically none of these potential three rail services will go outside of the boundaries of Newfoundland and Labrador. If they do, our regulations are irrelevant; they will automatically fall under federal regulations. What happens if either one of these three were to proceed, basically a spur line would be built from the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway to the mine site, and whatever goods needed to be transported into and out of the mine site would move on that railway, and that would be a railway separate and distinct from QNS&L; however, it will then move on to the QNS&L railway, and as it crosses over that interchange it then falls under federal regulations and anything that moves there then would be a federally regulated piece.

My understanding, further to the question on carriage of passengers, on this section, because again it is not – from Ross Bay Junction, in my understanding, to Sept-Iles, there is still a small passenger service there and anybody in the general public can go and get on it and travel one way or the other, so there are actually passengers. In this one here, there would not be an actual passenger service. The only reason anybody would be on this rail line - either one of these three potential rail lines - would be for work purposes. It is my understanding that this would actually be basically considered part of their work site and they would be employees or contractors of the mining companies and, as such, would be bound by whatever obligations the employers would have as it relates to workplace health and safety.

That is my understanding. I am sure somebody over in the department and our legal counsel are watching me now, and if I am saying anything wrong there will be a message coming in here in a minute telling me that I do not know what I am talking about again, but that is my understanding, Mr. Speaker.

As for 12.(2) "Where the minister issues a permit, the minister may (a) exempt the permit holder from the application of adopted provisions or from a regulation or part of a regulation made under section 15 or both…." The Leader of the NDP raises a good point: Why would you, on the one hand, establish a set of regulations that are fairly comprehensive and would seem to be fairly important, and then turn around and say the minister may exempt you from any or all of that, I suppose, potentially, at some point in the future, if he or she so desired?

While that may seem a little odd, it is fairly standard in most pieces of legislation where a minister is given authority to regulate something. I guess we can all think of examples when it comes to roads or…. An example that comes immediately to mind - and I know it is controversial but it comes up from time to time here in the House - is waste management, and the Province's stated desire some years back to do away with teepee incinerators. There was a date set, and everybody had to comply by such-and-such a date and what have you, and that was the policy and the regulation and so on; however, when the time came, for a variety of reasons, primarily because some smaller municipalities in particular did not have the ability to move as quickly away from it as anybody would have liked them to, the minister had the authority to grant an exemption or an extension to it and what have you.

This is what this clause is for. Under exceptional circumstances, within reason - if a rail line is damaged, I cannot see how a minister would be willing to risk their neck and say – I know I wouldn't, anyway – I am going to allow you to keep on running even though you have not done the appropriate remediation on your line. However, you might find a situation where some small item that is covered under the regulation is not critical to the safe operation of the railway, however, the company needs six weeks or something like that because they have to get a part in from China, for the sake of argument, and the minister would have the authority to say okay, this is not something that is going to endanger anybody's life, it is not an issue that is going to present us with any undue risk as it relates to environmental liabilities or anything like that, and provide them with the opportunity to continue operations.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that pretty much covers the couple of questions that the Opposition had.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works' comments on Bill 36, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Rail Service, closed the debate in second reading.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 36 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Rail Service. (Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 36 has now been read a second time.

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

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Rail Service," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 36)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Transportation and Works, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 36.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that this House do now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 36 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.

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

We are now debating Bill 36, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Rail Service.

A bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Rail Service." (Bill 36)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

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 22 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 22 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 22 inclusive carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried

CLERK: An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Rail Service.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: I move, Mr. Chair, that the Committee rise, report Bill 36 and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 36 and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Member for St. John's South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again on Bill 36, passed without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 36 carried without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bill be read a third time?

MS BURKE: Today, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Today, by leave.

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

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we will continue on the Order Paper, Order 3, third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 29)

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, 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 Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 29)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 29 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000" read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 29)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 4. I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Environment and Conservation, that Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Wild Life Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Wild Life Act, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Wild Life Act. (Bill 30)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 30 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion a bill, "An Act To Amend The Wild Life Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 30)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act, be now read a third time.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 32 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 32)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, The Child Care Services Act, The Child, Youth And Family Services Act And The Regional Health Authorities Regulations be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 35 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 Adoption Act, The Child Care Services Act, The Child, Youth And Family Services Act And The Regional Health Authorities Regulations. (Bill 35)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 35 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, The Child Care Services Act, The Child, Youth And Family Services Act And The Regional Health Authorities Regulations," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 35)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we are requesting leave to continue on the Order Paper to do third reading of Bill 36.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Government House Leader have leave to proceed with the third reading of Bill 36?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, by leave.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 36, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Rail Service, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 36 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 Revise The Law Respecting Rail Service. (Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 36 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Rail Service," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 36)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Motion 2.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 2, a resolution as put forward by the hon. the Government House Leader is now open for commentary and debate.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Just a few brief words on this. This resolution, of course, is a result of the Chief Justice Green report that was filed some time ago concerning members' interests. Last year we ended up, of course, with a brand new piece of legislation that governs the members of the House of Assembly and a lot of things pertaining to members of the House as to what you could or could not do, how you should do them and so on, the different officers of the House, a new management committee was struck to replace the old IEC.

Anyone who has been watching the parliamentary channel in this Province in the last year or so has seen that the management committee, for example, deals with a whole host of problems, from where members travel, how you do your travel claims, if you are over sixty days, and it is all done on television. One of the things that Chief Justice Green wanted as part of the process was to have openness, accountability and transparency. That act, of course, was intended to accomplish just that.

He, by the way, drafted the act himself. He did not leave it to the legislators to say what the House of Assembly should do in terms of accountability, integrity and administration. He specifically, himself, as part of his mandate, drafted the act. We brought it in here in the House last June - or before the election of 2007, actually, in the last sitting of the House, and said: Thank you very much. There it is. This is what the judge said. There are very few amendments. I do not think there were any amendments to it at the time. We have had to go back since. There were a couple of little issues that, even with consultations with him, he agreed were minor oversights. The basic principles as to what members can do were outlined by him in that particular piece of legislation.

Today we are dealing with the resolution as one part of it, because it deals with a Members' Compensation Review Committee. A lot of people out in the public might say: Well, what is that all about? What it is about, Mr. Speaker, is some of the issues that the Management Committee cannot deal with. There are certain things that the Management Committee can deal with, in terms of different Officers of the House, whether it be the Ombudsman, the Child and Youth Advocate and so on, Officers of the House. There is all kinds of legislation and rules and regulations and guidelines around that, which the Management Committee deals with, and certain members' requests and so on.

Four of the things that the Management Committee cannot deal with are salaries, allowances, severance payments –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I would ask your protection, please, from the –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members to my right, if they would be kind enough to take their conversations to the outside of the House. The Chair is having great difficulty hearing the speaker who has been identified by the Chair. I ask members to immediately stop their conversations within the House.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that.

Four of the items that impact MHAs that Justice Green dealt with, but he did not want the management committee dealing with, were: salaries, that is, what an MHA should be paid; allowances, everybody is familiar with the words ‘constituency allowances' in this Province, since 2005 and the Auditor General's reports; severance payments, in other words, if you are in private industry or you work anywhere else, even with government, there is a severance package that is usually part of your employment benefits. If you retire or resign your job after a certain period of time, there are rules and regulations around what, if any, severance you should get. That applies to MHAs as well. What severance should MHAs get, once their term is up, whether they are defeated while they are in office or they do not run anymore and they voluntary retire, and so on? The other one deals with pensions. What should be the pension scheme that is applicable to MHAs?

Now, you will notice all of these are monetary, financial issues, and Justice Green did not want a situation whereby MHAs sitting on a management committee decide those issues themselves. He wanted someone else outside, someone separate from the MHAs, to decide who should dictate what those benefits would be: what would be the salary levels; what would be the allowances for MHAs, whether it is a housing allowance, whether it is a travel allowance, whether it is an allowance to run your office, for example, if you have a constituency office; what should be the severance piece and the rules around severance if an MHA is ultimately severed; and what should be the pension provisions. All of them are monetary in nature, and he felt that it was more appropriate to have someone, a Member's Compensation Review Committee, deal with those issues rather than have the MHAs deal with it themselves. That is what we are here to deal today with.

Some of the members of this House were here before the House of Assembly Accountability Integrity and Admission Act that was designed by Justice Green, so they are going to end up in a situation, some of the older members in the House, where you have grandfathered. What rules applied to them applied before the act came into play. A lot of the members of the House, particularly newly elected members in 2007, they need to know what some of the rules are. Some of the members here sitting since 2007, for example, do not know to this day what kind of pension regime is going to be in place for them. That is going to be one of the obligations of this committee, to design and stipulate what kind of pension any MHA in this Province should have on a go-forward basis, and what should be the levels of allowances for MHAs, whether it is a housing allowance, as I say, or an office allowance. Some of these things will impact all MHAs, the allowance levels, for example. Some, like severance, probably will not impact everybody because there are older members and newer members. That will be dealt by them as well.

That is the purpose of it. It is not overly complicated, but the public have a right to know and understand what is happening here. Some people may think: Well, you know, is this committee being appointed, a bunch of politicians again, and going off to decide what their financial benefits are going to be, themselves? That is not what this is about at all. This is a case where outside individuals, three individuals, a gentleman by the name of Joe O'Neill, a lady by the name of Cathy Bennett, and a Mr. Brian Barry – now, I do not personally know them, but I have met them. They are the three persons who will sit on this committee.

Now I have met, personally, Mr. O'Neill, because Mr. O'Neill was a very well known, prominent member of the Newfoundland and Labrador bureaucracy for many years, involved in labour relations and the negotiations and discussions, labour standards and so on, a very well respected individual, but he is not a politician, and you will notice none of these three people, not one of them, are former MHAs. Quite often, in the past, when we did things in the House of Assembly we used to look to former MHAs, retired individuals, usually one from the respective parties in the Province, the Progressive Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the NDP. We would all put a candidate from each party on a committee and say: Go work it out. Well, this is done deliberately and intentionally. There are no former MHAs as part of this committee. If this committee wants to go out and talk to former MHAs there is provision made for that in here, and I assume they will talk to all forty-eight members here. It says so right in this resolution, "…include consultations with appropriate persons who can assist the Committee with respect to its required duties." So, whomever that committee feels they should talk to, they are at liberty to talk to. If they want to go talk to former ministers and MHAs and premiers, if they want to get financial advice, if they want to go see actuaries, if they want to talk to anyone, like chartered accountants or tax consultants and whatever, they are at liberty to do that. That is the purpose of having these three persons.

Mr. O'Neill, as I said, has had a distinguished bureaucratic career in this Province. Ms Cathy Bennett, I have never met the lady myself but I have certainly heard of her. She is the lady who is involved in the McDonalds businesses in this Province, well known when it comes to human resource issues, dealing with administrative details, financing and so on, very well respecting in the business community, and former chair, I do believe, of the St. John's Board of Trade. I haven't met Mr. Barry, but I understand, again, he is a very well respected gentleman from Central Newfoundland. He has been involved in actuarial business, insurance businesses, and so on. These three people all bring a set of skills to the table. In addition to their own skills they are at liberty to consult with whomever they need.

I am certainly going to be voting in favour of this resolution. I think we have taken the proper approach by not having former politicians involved in it. I think we have chosen very well respecting and competent individuals here to do this. They are at liberty to consult with whomever they want.

The other thing I would point out is that they have to come back within four months of starting their duties. Justice Green didn't just say, go strike this committee, and it can take its dear old time as to when they want to deal with this. He said what they deal with, salaries, allowances, severance payments and pensions, and he set the timeframe within which they must deal with it, four months.

Within four months this committee is going to come back and everybody in the House, then, is going to get an opportunity, everybody in the Province will get an opportunity, to see what the committee reported. This is not a report that is going to be shelved within government and nobody is ever going to see it and so on. You can be sure that in order to have the true openness and accountability that Justice Green was demanding, the only way this is ever going to fly and be acceptable to the public is, not only do we have competent respected people do it, which we do, but also that the report is made public, so if the public want to have commentary on what those commissioners say, that is the public's right to do so. I will certainly be speaking in favour of this.

I do note that Justice Green said at least once each General Assembly, so he has even provided here that if once is not sufficient, if the body of the House of Assembly feels that you need to do this more than once – maybe something will be come up totally unexpected right now that nobody anticipates. We are doing this in this sitting of the House of Assembly. Something may well come up two years from now that might require a second one. That provision is there if necessary, but the anticipation is that it will be done once per session; in other words, once during every election. The last election was in 2007. The next one is slated to be in October 2011, so this is the one for that session. Now, whether another one is ever going to be required, that remains to be seen on another day.

In conclusion, I think it is a very open process, I think it is a very transparent process, and I think we certainly have the proper people doing the process. I look forward to seeing the report as well, and I am sure the public are as well, and we will look forward then to any commentary that anyone might have.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am quite pleased to speak to this motion today. As has been pointed out by the Opposition House Leader, what we are doing here, and what we have been doing to get to this point, has been following a direction that was part of the review that was done by Chief Justice Green. We have a requirement in legislation now that we put in place at least once every General Assembly this Members' Compensation Review Committee.

I would like to point out, both to ourselves and to anybody watching, to the public, that this is something brand new, I think, in Legislatures right across this country, and may be brand new even in the parliamentary system that we grow out of as a parliamentary Legislature, because what we are doing is, we are recognizing, because of what we have been through - we do not have to go over everything that we have been through; it has all been quite public - because of the way in which the House was managed, we have recognized that cannot continue, it could not continue, it has stopped, and because of the Commission and the report that was done we have now put something in place that is quite revolutionary in terms of parliamentary Legislatures. We are saying that we are putting decision-making with regard to some things that are extremely important to members of the House, we are putting that in the hands of an outside group to come up with the recommendations and the decisions, actually, about where we are going to go, where we are going to be governed on a regular basis from here on in with regard to salaries, with regard to allowances, with regard to severance payments and with regard to pensions.

It was very interesting, as Leader of the Third Party, to have the discussions that we had. The House Leader, the Opposition House Leader, myself and the Speaker, were the committee. It was a very good process, I think, the way in which we all could agree on what it was we were trying to do, the way in which we could agree that we wanted this Members' Compensation Review Committee to be as objective and unbiased as possible, the way in which we actually were able to discuss individuals who we were recommending, because we put out a number of nominations, and more than these three people were contacted, but these three were the ones who were able to say yes, of the group that we had agreed upon. So I think that we are setting a new standard for how the House of Assembly or Legislatures - to use the general term – how Legislatures are managed in this country.

I do think, based on my experience last summer when I was part of the legislative conference that took place in P.E.I., I do know that other Legislatures are looking at what is happening here. They are following the new rules that we have in place.

When we think of the recent scandal that is being revealed in Westminster, in London, in the U.K., the issue that we dealt with here in Newfoundland and Labrador was part of a huge issue. Whether our colleagues in other Legislatures want to acknowledge it or not, in many ways they are still running under the same loose kind of rules that we ran under here. Ours seem to be not as loose as we thought they were when we compare them to Westminster; that seemed to be completely over the top.

What we are now doing, what we have done with the Green report, with the new legislation we have been under for two years, is to say we understand accountability to the public. We understand accountability to the people for their money, because it is their money that we spend. We want to be open about it, we want to be transparent, and we want to be accountable.

I believe that we have, with the three people that we are putting forward in this resolution, I think with the three people that we have chosen to be on the committee, we do have a breadth of experience. I think that was something that was needed. I think we have people who understand what it is to consult, and that is going to be important because they are going to have a big job.

We know that they will not do all of the work themselves, because they will have to depend on some expertise from inside of government, especially when it comes to looking at the different options around pensions, for example. The one thing I hope is that whatever they come up with, with regard especially to pensions, because that one is so new, because we are looking at - there may be no change. This is the thing. What we are looking at is questioning whether or not the old system will continue for people who became elected in 2007, or will there be a new system.

I would hope that this committee, and I am sure that those who will be conferring with them on our behalf, the house management team, along with the Speaker, will make it clear to them that they reflect what the members of the House are thinking. As they meet with members of the House, I would hope that they would reflect - and I will be very concrete. For example, if the majority of the members of the House who are going to be affected by this said (a) is what I think is the best, I would hope that the Committee would not turn around and say we are going to go totally against that because we think (b) is the best. I hope that it will be real consultation.

It is a big task that they have been given, and they have a lot of responsibility because they are the ones who are sort of taking on being the voice of the people. They are the ones who are going to be judged - not just us - with regard to the recommendations that they come up with.

We do know, and I think it is fair to say it, that some of the new rules that have been put in place have been causing some problems, legitimate problems, for some MHAs, and particularly MHAs in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is understandable, because when something new is put in place you try to have the best, but wrinkles happen. On the Management Commission, we have had requests coming from MHAs with regard to some things that are in the rules that they are finding very difficult. These are not requests of people trying to get around rules. It is requests saying this particular rule is just not working all the time. I feel good that we made the decision we did as a Management Commission, which was: it is not for us to look at this, this issue has to go to the Members' Compensation Review Committee. So we already have issues that we know they have to deal with, because we have a number of letters from MHAs on issues that we did not believe we should deal with as a Management Commission, and they will have to deal with those issues.

So, I do support the resolution. Obviously, I agreed to it as part of the committee before it came to floor. On behalf of the members of the House, I do encourage all members to co-operate with this committee when it begins its work because it is an important piece of work, and the more that we co-operate I think the better it will be in terms of the outcome. It is a lot of work. It will be happening over the summer. It is hard to grab some of us over the summer, but it is going to have to happen. So I do encourage co-operation on behalf of all of us whom the committee will be contacting.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Are there any further speakers on the motion?

Is the House ready for the question?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

I report the motion carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we call from the Order Paper, Motion 3.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The motion that has been called is the motion that deals with Mr. Fraser Lush.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: March.

MS JONES: Fraser March, sorry. I apologize to Fraser Lush.

It has to deal with Fraser March, Mr. Speaker, and as you know, Mr. March was once appointed in this Province by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, in 2001 in fact, to be the Citizens' Representative for the Province. Because of audits that were done by the Auditor General and reportings by the Auditor General, it was the Lieutenant-Governor in Council again, in 2005, under the Administration opposite, that decided that Mr. March would be let go from his position as Citizens' Representative.

Today, Mr. Speaker, what the government is asking is that there be a terms of reference and a review in that Mr. March would have an opportunity to voice his opinions and concerns around the activities that were outlined in the Auditor General's report and the conditions under which his employment as the Citizens' Representative was terminated.

Mr. Speaker, there are different issues here around how the review will be conducted. It says by a retired judge and it will be in –

MR. T. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General on a point of order.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition said that this was a motion that the government was doing and it is certainly my understanding that this is something that the Legislature, the House, is doing. This is something - in view of the fact that the Citizens' Representative is an officer of the House of Assembly and is hired and is dismissed on resolution of the House of Assembly. Now I know that technically speaking, the Cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, signs the necessary order, but it is only done on a resolution of the House of Assembly, whether it is the hiring of a Citizens' Representative or the firing of a Citizens' Representative.

In view of the fact that a motion was committed to the Management Commission to endorse the resolution, I would like to have clarified whether this is something that the House of Assembly is doing or something that government is doing. It is my understanding that it is the former, and I believe that the Legislature of this Province should exercise its authority. In this case, it is certainly my understanding this is something the Legislature is doing because officers of the House report to the Speaker and report to the House, not to government. I would like to get clarification. I would like to hear what the Leader of the Opposition has to say on that point.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order; point of clarification.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, the government is bringing forward a motion today, but, Mr. Speaker, you can categorize this any way you want. The reality is this, Mr. Speaker –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, whether a point of order or a point of clarification, this motion was brought forward because as Government House Leader and a member of the Management Commission of the House of Assembly, I was asked to bring it to the Management Commission. It was brought forward to the Management Commission. It was voted on by the Management Commission and by majority vote it came to the House of Assembly. That is part of the motion. It actually indicates that.

So Mr. Speaker, as point of clarification, this is a motion that has been brought forward by the House of Assembly via the Management Commission as opposed to government and Cabinet.

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

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

First of all, I would like to preface my comments by saying that I have not, will not be making any comments as to the substantive issues of this motion.

Since the March issue has been dealt with going back some years now, I have always refrained from any commentary on it and that includes when it was before this House back in 2005, I believe, any televised proceedings of the management committee, any non-televised meetings and whatever. I have not had anything and I will not be partaking today in the debate on the substance of this resolution, nor casting any vote, and that has been made clear for the record by myself for quite some years now.

My only commentary will be in regards to the process. It is my understanding that the process - and I stand to be corrected as well, I am also a member of the management committee. My understanding is that the issue, the resolution, the substantive piece of the resolution was brought to the management committee by the government members. The management committee then dealt with it and took a vote to bring it to the House. Now we can get into the semantics of how it got here but that is my understanding, and I do not care how you want to – interpret it as you will, that is the Speaker's rule to do, but that is my understanding of how this transpired and how it got to the management committee. So if we are going to outline the full history, I think it is only fair and proper that you outline it all. It did not just grow in the management committee. It came to the management committee somehow.

Yes, I agree with the Minister of Justice, it is here because the management committee voted to bring it here and the House is dealing with it now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Government House Leader to the point of order.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to note that when the motion was introduced, on the Notices of Motion, it was brought forward by the Government House Leader and seconded by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. So it certainly was not even brought into the House as a motion by government members. It came through the Management Commission but it was brought to the floor on a motion by the Government House Leader ,as well as the Leader of the Third Party.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, on the point of order.

MS MICHAEL: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, I had stepped out and I missed the point of order. I missed what happened, but the only thing I would like to say is we did make a decision in the Management Commission that we did agree that the person who would bring the motion was the House Leader. We did make that decision in Management Commission and then the House Leader asked me was I interested in seconding it and I said yes. But we did make that decision in the Management Commission that the House Leader would be the one bringing it forward.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This is obviously an unusual situation. I am not sure if I should seek guidance from the Table on this particular issue.

It is certainly the view of the Chair, who also sits on the Management Commission, that this issue was brought before the Management Commission, it was discussed at the Management Commission, it was voted on at the Management Commission, and the Management Commission had made a determination that the issue would be presented, as any issue has to be presented, by a member of the House of Assembly. The determination was made that the issue would be brought forward by the hon. the Government House Leader, but not necessarily as a government issue. It was an issue that was brought forward as an issue of the House of Assembly.

That is the view of the Chair. If hon. members wish to seek further clarification, we can certainly take a recess and I can seek clarification from the Table, but that is the view of the Chair.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

I want to speak to the motion and I am going to talk a little bit about the history. Maybe then we will figure out where the motion came from and how it got here.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is this: I sit on the Management Commission, and at no time at the Management Commission did we consecutively get together and say well, we think Fraser March has been done an injustice and as a Commission we should take a resolution and we should bring it to the House of Assembly. It did not happen. It did not happen, Mr. Speaker.

What happened was the hon. Government House Leader, who is a minister of the Cabinet, comes into a meeting and says we want to put a resolution forward. Who are we? It was not the House of Assembly. The House of Assembly never, at any time – at any time - said there should be a motion to allow Fraser March to have the opportunity to an independent review and so on and so forth.

Only one time did this House ever have a resolution on the floor. It was back in December 2005, and I remember it well. It was the only time this House ever had a resolution on the floor saying that Fraser March should have the opportunity to come and make his case. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? It was the members opposite who said, oh, no, Mr. March will not have that opportunity - and they voted collectively against the motion.

That was the only time that this House had ever spoken in terms of having action like this. This motion is couched, couched in the Management Commission, and it should not be. It should have come from the Minister of Justice, or from another department of government, if they felt that their actions in recommending that he be fired in the first place should require further review and evaluation. Then it was up to them to do that, up to them, themselves, either through Executive Council or through the Department of Justice, but they made a choice, as they have the opportunity to do, to bring it to the Management Commission of which they have a majority vote. Regardless, Mr. Speaker, of what the view of the Opposition is in the Management Commission, at the end of the day it is the government who rules in that particular entity, and that is the way it is.

MR. T. MARSHALL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, on a point of order.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition just said that the government has a majority. In the Management Commission, the government does not have a majority.

I fail to understand the reasoning of the Leader of the Opposition. We have a Legislature here. We are all elected MHAs. The Officers of the House of Assembly are appointed and dismissed by the House of Assembly, where we are MHAs. Some of us do happen to be Cabinet ministers, that is correct.

This resolution was initiated by me. I am the MHA for Humber East. I happen to be the Minister of Justice, but out of respect for the House of Assembly, the body that hires and dismisses the Citizens' Representative, the resolution was forwarded to the Management Commission for their approval or rejection. I watched the debate and the Management Commission, of which the government does not have a majority - and let's be very clear that there is no majority of any government on the Management Commission - the Management Commission had the debate and decided to endorse this resolution and bring it forward.

This is a resolution of the House of Assembly. This is a resolution of the MHAs and it should be dealt with in that framework.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will, perhaps, provide a greater clarification on this particular issue.

Again, the Chair sits on the Management Commission. The issue was brought before the Management Commission. The Management Commission did give direction to bring the issue forward to the House of Assembly.

This issue could be argued either way, but in the Chair's view this is clearly an issue of the House of Assembly and I do not think I can be any clearer than that.

Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With all these interruptions I hope I am going to get more time put back on to make my comments.

Anyway, I am not going to belabour the issue. The reality is, it is here because government chose this channel to bring it here as opposed to taking it upon themselves to do it, which would have been the more appropriate mechanism.

Mr. Speaker, I guess in light of their actions going back to 2005 you would have needed a very different perspective in order to do that. So now it is being couched under the auspices of the Management Commission which in my opinion, and it is my opinion, that it is no place for it to have been. It should have been done through the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Furthermore, it is the Lieutenant-Governor in Council that actually appoints the officers of the House. They come here as a motion to be voted on but it is actually the Cabinet that makes the selection, it is. It is the Cabinet that makes the decision when one of them is let go.

When Mr. Byrne, the former Government House Leader, in December of 2005 introduced a motion in this House to have Fraser March relieved of his duties as the Citizens' Representative, it certainly did not come from any consultation that anyone had with me. It came directly of a decision of the Cabinet and it had to be brought here to be voted on as a routine piece of business in the House of Assembly. Anyone who looks at the Orders of the House and looks at how these bills are written and the course of action for decisions, they will know that is exactly how it works. That was the reason on December 1, 2005 the then Government House Leader introduced a motion in this House of Assembly. It was a motion to have the Citizens' Representative, who happened to be Fraser March, removed from his position.

Mr. Speaker, it came on the heels of a report that was done by the Auditor General; a report which outlined a number of things, a number of things in that report. I am not even sure if government ever at that time followed up on those to even see if they were accurate or correct or what the case may be. Maybe that is why they are going here today. Maybe that is why they want to go down this road today is because they failed to do diligence back in 2005, but if that is the case, Mr. Speaker, it took them a long time to get to that realization.

Anyway, when that motion came for debate in the House of Assembly, I was here, a sitting member at the time. It was on December 5, 2005 and at that time the Member for Grand Bank, Ms Foote, proposed a motion, an amendment to that motion. That amendment said that Fraser March be given an opportunity to state his case to the House of Assembly before a vote was taken regarding his removal from the office of Citizens' Representative. That was the amendment that was proposed.

At that time, Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader of the day felt that there would be an opportunity to review this; he would have to take it back to the IEC and so on. But on that occasion, the Leader of the NDP at that time rose in the House of Assembly and spoke to that amendment, that point of order, to add that amendment and said, Mr. Speaker, said very clearly that he felt that at that time this amendment was necessary and that it needed to be done before members were asked to make a decision like this.

So, Mr. Speaker, based on that amendment that was proposed and the dialogue that day by the Leader of the NDP of the day and by Ms Foote, who was the Member for Grand Bank, it was decided by the Government House Leader that he would bring the issue back to the IEC again. He would relay these concerns to the IEC, who happened to be all members of the House of Assembly at that point anyway, before they went to a debate.

Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader at the time also went on to make other points. He spoke to the Auditor General's report and the findings of the independent officer. He stated that the Citizens' Representative was provided with opportunity to come before their committee and it did not happen. He also went on to say that the Citizens' Rep and the IEC had hired independent legal counsel to review the identified issues and that independent report was tabled in the House of Assembly. We can all get access to that report and the general public as well. It is already out there.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, on December 12 the motion came back to the House of Assembly, and so did the amendment; the amendment which stated that Fraser March should have the opportunity to make his case before the House of Assembly. When the Government House Leader debated that motion at that time, he ended it by saying that he would not support the amendment. He would not support having Fraser March being heard or having the opportunity to state his case. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there were other members who spoke that day. I know, Mr. Joyce, who happened to be the Member for Bay of Islands, spoke on that motion and spoke in support of the amendment. The Member for Topsail, who is still the same Member for Topsail today, spoke to that motion. The Member for Trinity North, who is still the member and the Minister of Health today, spoke to that motion, and so did the Leader of the Opposition at the time, who was the Member for Twillingate & Fogo District.

Mr. Speaker, when the vote was taken in the House of Assembly on the amendment, the vote was defeated. In fact, I spoke to that motion as well on that day. After the vote was defeated, there was no opportunity for Mr. March other than to pursue the courts which was the option that he had taken.

Let's talk about the report that was done for a minute, the report that was done by the IEC that was taken back. At the time the Speaker of the House who was Mr. Hodder engaged a legal firm to do an independent review of the entire situation, to look at a number of questions that had been put forward by the IEC. There were three questions put forward on that date that I want to highlight today. Because if members opposite had listened to the responses to those three questions that were provided by this legal firm, then, Mr. Speaker, Mr. March would have gotten his opportunity in 2005 to make his views known and to explain his case. At the time, Mr. Speaker, even though the report was done, even though the review was conducted, even though the responses left doubt in people's minds, the members opposite still voted against it.

One of the questions: Did Mr. March violate section 4.2 of the Citizens' Representative Act which prohibits the Citizens' Representative from holding another public office or carrying on a trade business or other profession while engaged as the Citizens' Rep? The findings, Mr. Speaker, indicated that although he was doing work for NAPE and home support workers in the Province, they felt – and this is all on page 6 in the same report; you can look at it – they felt that it was based on evidence, and that was what they indicated in the report.

The second question: Did Mr. March, as the Citizens' Rep., improperly claim reimbursements from the Office of the Speaker of the House of Assembly, certain allowances for private vehicle usage during the term of his engagement as the Citizens' Rep?

The findings said that there were serious improprieties that occurred with travel claims and records, but it would be difficult to conclude that this was a based on a single incident of poor judgement or sloppy bookkeeping.

Did Mr. March, in his leadership of an investigation by the Office of the Citizens' Rep into the operations of personal care homes within the Province, contravene the Conflict of Interest Act, or constitute common law conflict of interest? That was the third question that was asked.

The findings in the report stated there certainly would be some perceived conflict of interest, as was quite clear in his support of unionization of home care workers. Mr. March had also engaged in fee-for-service activities for a number of months beyond the commencement date of his appointment as the Citizens' Rep.

Mr. Speaker, the questions that I have today, that have gone unanswered, that have gone unanswered when government members introduced this resolution to the Management Commission looking for support, have still not been answered.

That is: Why is it that the government, in December 2005, defeated a motion – defeated a motion put forward - that would have allowed Mr. March to appear before the House of Assembly to address the very concerns that they are saying he should have the opportunity to address today? Why is that the case? I have never been given an answer to that.

The other question I have: Why is it that the Minister of Justice, himself, did not introduce this motion in the House of Assembly? Why is it that the Minister of Justice is not bringing forward this resolution today, and instead had it brought to the Management Commission, asking them to bring it to the House of Assembly? We have never gotten an answer to that.

The other question, Mr. Speaker: Why will the government not do its own intervention with Mr. March? Why is it that the hon. House of Assembly is being called in to deal with this issue when we have our autonomy intact on this issue? We did diligence. We did diligence as a House, bringing in a motion, bringing in amendments, having it debated, and the same thing was done in the IEC. I ask, Mr. Speaker: Why will the government today not do its own intervention on this particular issue? Why is it they want to use the Management Commission and the House of Assembly to do it?

It is not that anyone has a problem with what they are doing, other than the fact that it is four years late. Other than the fact that it is four years too late, nobody really has a big problem with it, other than the fact that the process they are using is an unnecessary one. If they felt voting down the opportunity for Mr. March to have a say in 2005 was the wrong thing to do, they can intervene as a government and fix that without ever coming to the House of Assembly.

The other question I have, Mr. Speaker: Why have they waited so long to proceed with this? Everyone who has followed this story in the Province knows the extreme anguish that Mr. March has had to go through. Everyone knows that he has had to take his issues to the highest court in the land and being told that this is not the avenue in which your issue gets dealt with.

This man, for the last four years, has had to spend his time, his money, his energy, trying to get his views heard and trying to get a fair hearing because the government opposite decided, in 2005, it was not necessary and we are not giving it to you. After four years of anguish he is now going to be given that opportunity.

Does it beg questions? Absolutely, it begs questions. I would like to know: Do the ministers opposite have new information? Do they have new information on this case that they want to share with the people of the Province? Do they have new information that they want to share with the people of the Province with regard to this issue? Do they have information other than what was provided four years ago, that we should all know about? Obviously, when you make a huge change in your position, Mr. Speaker, it usually is incited by something; it is usually for a reason.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things which the government has certainly failed to answer in all of this, and one the biggest questions that they have failed to answer is why they did not give this gentleman this opportunity four years ago in fairness to him and his family, in the position that he held in this Province. That is the part that I cannot understand. That is the part that has left me more puzzled that anything else. On that day, when that amendment was put forward in this House, I have the full list of every single member who stood and voted against that, and almost every one of them are sitting across from me or next to me today. I could actually read every one of their districts into this record, to know how they voted at that time so that this individual did not get the opportunity for fairness and did not get the opportunity to have their views heard.

Mr. Speaker, four years later, a totally different attitude, a totally different change. I am glad to see it. I am just not sure of a couple of things. Why the epiphany? What caused it? The other issue is: Why didn't government themselves take the action to correct it, as opposed to funnelling it through the Management Commission and through the House of Assembly?

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to say anything any different today in regard to this resolution than I said nearly four years ago when I spoke to it in this House. That is, every single person should have the opportunity to be heard.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Because the Management Commission was not the place to have this issue dealt with. I felt strongly about that and I still do, I say to the Minister of Finance. I say, if there was backbone over there, government would have owned up to this a long time ago and they would have dealt with it themselves and not used the Management Commission to bring it to this House of Assembly to have it dealt with in the first place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will ask all members of the House to keep a respectable level of decorum while we are in debate.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, before I was rudely interrupted, I was saying that nearly four years ago I felt that Mr. March needed the opportunity and should have that opportunity, and I still feel that way today.

I have already said the reason I did not vote for it in the Management Commission, because it should have been the Minister of Justice dealing and bringing this issue forward to the House, and not the Management Commission. My issue is with the process, not with the opportunity for someone to have their day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Mr. Speaker, I just hope that what is happening here today, the route that has been chosen by the government to bring this motion in here, will not destroy what has been built up in the Management Commission, and the real purpose of that Commission. The real purpose of that Commission, Mr. Speaker, is not to be used to do the bidding of government when they do not want to do it themselves. That is my only fear, Mr. Speaker, because that is exactly what I see happening in this process.

In terms of supporting the resolution, I have no problem supporting the resolution. I have no problem giving Mr. March the opportunity that he should have gotten four years ago, Mr. Speaker, when other members in this House of Assembly, members on the opposite side, spoke differently and felt that he should not have the opportunity to be heard.

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is, it took them a long time but I am glad to see that at least they see now that every person should be entitled to fairness, and should be entitled to the opportunity to be heard. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, although I disagree with the mechanism used by government to get to where we are, I will support the resolution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will appeal, once again, to all members of the House to respect the Chamber and to keep a respectable level of decorum in the Chamber.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is a pleasure for me to have an opportunity to get up here and to speak to this motion.

There are really two different items that are being discussed here. The first item is whether Mr. March should get a review, whether he should get an opportunity to have an independent judge take a look at what the House of Assembly did and to see if he got natural justice. That was the whole purpose of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I am appalled at the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, in terms of her treatment and her lack of respect for the House of Assembly. I listened to the debate of the Management Commission, I listened to the debate of the Leader of the Opposition, I listened to the debate with the greatest of respect to officials of the House of Assembly and to the Speaker, who I respect very much. The fact is, this is the House of Assembly. We have a government that consists of three branches. We have the judiciary, who value their independence very much, we have the executive which is the Cabinet, and we also have the Legislature. The whole purpose of the Green Report was for the Legislature to have proper rules and procedures in which to conduct its activities.

In this particular case the House of Assembly dealt with Mr. Fraser March. The Internal Economy Commission, which existed under the Citizens' Representative Act, dealt with Mr. March and made its decision, but Mr. March, the Citizens' Representative, is an officer not of the government, he is an officer of the House of Assembly. What I find that the Leader of the Opposition tries to do: if something happens that she does not support and does not like, she will blame it on the government, when this is something that the House of Assembly must do.

This particular resolution that was introduced to give Mr. March access to natural justice, to let him have the satisfaction, through an independent judge, as to whether or not natural justice was given to him in this particular case, that decision was made. I could have, as Minister of Justice, introduced a resolution in the House and done that. I could have done that, any member could do that, but it is because of the fact that he is an officer of the House of Assembly and that there is now a Management Commission that deals with and manages the House of Assembly, that out of respect to the Assembly, out of respect to the Commission, the resolution was not introduced by government in this House. The resolution was referred to the Management Commission at my request, out of respect for the Commission, out of respect for the House, for the Commission to make its decision. I felt that this was a decision that the House should make, not the government should make. Government could still do it, government can step in, but that is not what happened here.

The Citizens' Representative is filled – the actual decision is made on a resolution of the House of Assembly and once the House of Assembly makes that resolution, whether it is to hire someone as the Citizens' Rep or to dismiss that person, obviously the Lieutenant-Governor in Council steps in and follows the direction of the House, follows the decision of the House, by signing the Order in Council or the Minute in Council to give the legal effect to the decision that the House has made. The government cannot make that decision, the government cannot sign that order, it cannot sign that minute of Council, unless the House of Assembly has passed a resolution approving it.

That is why the matter is referred to the House of Assembly, because in my view, it is not something that government should deal with. It is something that should be referred to the members of the House of Assembly, because this is their officer who is being dealt with here, not government.

Mr. Speaker, just to remind members what happened here: Mr. March was appointed on a resolution of the House of Assembly in 2001. The Auditor General's report in 2004 raised concerns. The Internal Economy Commission of the House of Assembly conducted a review that was raised by the Auditor General and subsequently, Mr. March was removed from his position by a vote of the House of Assembly on December 12, 2005.

Mr. March then made an application to the court. He wanted what the House of Assembly had done reviewed to see if he had been accorded natural justice. What the judge said - and I respect the decision of the judge. The judge said is that the court, as one branch of government, could not review the motion of the House of Assembly because the House of Assembly was immune from judicial review. The House of Assembly was immune.

So, Mr. March did not get his request for a judge and therefore, in the interest of natural justice, I asked the Management Commission that Mr. March be provided with an opportunity to have his case reviewed. I requested a review by a retired judge. As I said, I respect and support the ruling of the Trial Division but I believe this review is to be necessary in the best interest of the Office of the Citizen's Rep. I then referred it to the House of Assembly because I felt that was the appropriate place. I could have gotten up and moved it in this House. I could have gotten government to do it, but he is not a representative of government. He is an officer of the House and the Management Commission must carry out its duty.

The Management Commission should be jealous of the rights and privileges of the House of Assembly. The Speaker and the officials should enhance and support and jealously regard the rights and privileges of the House of Assembly. That is why I felt it should go to the Management Commission and the Management Commission, I am glad to see did pass that resolution and has brought it to this House and now we are voting for it right now.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I think that is all I have to say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I do want to speak to this resolution. I think it is a very important resolution and I want to speak to it from two perspectives. One, is why I made the decision I made as a member of the Management Commission and then just to remind us a little bit, and why I decided not just with regard to the process of the Management Commission, but also the content of our decision. I am new, of course, to this issue because I was not in the House in 2005, and I only observed this issue from outside as a member of the public at that time. So I was coming in with fresh eyes as a member of the Management Commission.

When this issue was first brought to us, I had a couple of questions. One thing became clear to me as I looked at the issue and the process, is that the whole thing had begun with the Internal Economy Commission, and the Internal Economy Commission is accountable to the House of Assembly. The Internal Economy Commission - and we are now the Internal Economy Commission; that is in legislation, the transition. We are not a different body. We have a different name and we have different rules and regulations, and please goodness, we are operating better than the IEC of former days did, but, in law we are the IEC.

The IEC does have the right, and that means the Management Commission, I believed - and I think that was proven to me in discussion - have the right to let the House of Assembly know if it is not happy with something that has happened in the House of Assembly that relates to the jurisdiction of the Management Commission or the IEC. When that became very clear to me, when I really strongly believed that was the situation, then it seemed to me with new people on the Management Commission - I certainly was not on it before, neither was the party I represent on it before because the Third Party did not sit on the IEC in the old format - with new eyes and at a new moment that we did have the right, and I think right is the word, to review this issue and to bring it back to the House of Assembly.

Now, I did have questions. I am not going to hide behind this. I did have questions about why. Why did the minister, who was then the Minister of Justice, bring it forward all of a sudden? That I did have a question about, and I still have that question. I have not really heard the answer to that. I still have that question: Why? In terms of, was it the right place to bring it? I did not have a problem because I believed it was the right place to bring it.

So having said that, I did vote all the way through that we continue to deal with the issue, that we bring it to the House of Assembly. Having done that, I then had to study the issue. I had to study what happened with Mr. Fraser March, and what happened between him and the IEC and what happened in the House of Assembly. I have to say, as a person coming into it with new eyes and fresh eyes and from the outside, I was quite horrified by a lot of what I read.

The more I read - and the documents are about that thick, if there are MHAs who have not seen them. The documentation is about that thick. That is why I had to use my big bag today because I brought all of it down with me. By the time I read through stuff I was horrified and, I have to say, shocked at the way in which this gentleman was treated. I have no idea about anything in terms of claims that were made against him, are they right, are they wrong, I have no idea and there has not been sufficient evidence, as far as I am concerned, presented in anything that I read to make any decisions. One thing I do know is that we have a system in our country, and whether it is inside of the courtroom or outside of the courtroom, we allow people to have a voice. We do not decide somebody is guilty or not guilty of something without that person having an opportunity to present their reality.

I have to say, when I read - and I said this in the Management Commission meeting were we made the decision, so it is in Hansard already, but I will say it again - I have to say that when I read everything that I read, when I read John Noel's affidavit, when I read Hansard, when I read through everything, I really felt that what had been done was a kangaroo court. I really believe that. This man deserves to have a voice.

I heard all the points. I have heard people say, and I saw it in writing: Oh, he had his chance. He refused to come meet with us. That was the IEC excuse. Well the thing was, he was given six days to get ready for a meeting, a meeting that his lawyer could not be at. You had communication back and forth. Some of it was phone communication according to the affidavit, some of it was written, but the bottom line for me, that was the thing that really upset me, was the last letter that he sent to the IEC he left the door open. He did not say he would never turn up. He said: If the IEC wishes to meet with the Citizen's Representative in accordance with the Citizen's Representative Act, then it has only to arrange a time. However, under no circumstances will the Citizen's Representative met with a solicitor employed by the IEC as this would interfere with the autonomy normally associated with the Ombudsman practice. He never heard from them again from anything that I can see.

Reading the affidavit, reading everything else, what happened after that May meeting was that the IEC moved on its own track and then we got the IEC making decisions, finally leading to the meeting in December. When I read all that, I came to the conclusion that he had not been fairly treated. He really had not been. I have to say to my colleagues in the House, after everything that I have been learning about the IEC over the last three years that I have now been in my political position, I certainly do not have much faith in anything that that body did at that time. I am sorry to say that, but I am hearing too much and learning too much, not just hearing but learning too much. I do not believe that he was fairly treated.

I have not spoken with the former leader of the NDP, but I have read things that happened during the discussions, as I read the resolution that he tried to get passed in the House of Assembly, a resolution that said: this House of Assembly consider whether Fraser March should be removed from the office of Citizens' Representative after a proper procedure be invoked in keeping with the position of an officer of this House with full application of the rules of natural justice, and it goes on. That amendment was voted down by the House of Assembly.

What I am saying is consistent with everything that the New Democratic Party, through the then-leader and the then member for Signal Hill–Quidi Vidi, said in this House. Everything I am saying is consistent, and I had that position before I read – I deliberately did not read what my predecessor had said and what my predecessor had done, until I had read all the other facts myself and made the decision.

Having said all that, Mr. Speaker, I do want to make one point. Eighteen people in this room did vote to do what happened, to make a judgement on Mr. March without his having had a voice. Eighteen people in this room made that decision and, you know, I really would love to hear from those eighteen people, if they vote for this resolution today, why they voted the way they did in December 2005.

There are some people in this room on the government side who actually did not vote. There was a division called, and it is there in black and white for us to see: who voted nay and who voted aye and those who did not vote. There are actually people in this room, who, for whatever reason, were not even present in the room for the vote. Did they deliberately exempt themselves? Why? There are a number in this room who did that. I am probably not going to be given the reason, but I would like to know why people who voted aye back in December 2005, if they vote for this resolution today, what changed your mind? I really would like to know that, but I probably will not get the answer to that, Mr. Speaker.

I think I have made the points clearly that I want to make. This is not a matter of who is on what side here. The side we should be on is justice, and justice was not done. I am just happy that we will take a step forward today to ensure that justice should be done, because as I said earlier, I really think that what happened was a kangaroo court.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the Question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will not read the whole resolution, but he will read the last –

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly Management Commission select a retired Supreme Court Justice who shall be appointed to conduct a review of the actions of Mr. Fraser March that led to his removal from the Office of the Citizens' Representative.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we call motion 1.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I have received a message from his Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All rise.

Letter dated May of 2009.

As Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I transmit Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending 31 March 2010. By way of supplementary supply and in accordance with the provisions of sections 54 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these Estimates to the House of Assembly .

Sgd:______________________________

John C. Crosbie, Lieutenant-Governor

Please be seated.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, that the message, together with a bill, be referred to a Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the message, together with a bill, be referred to a Committee of Supply 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 on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

CHAIR (Collins): Order, please!

The business of the Committee is to discuss the resolution granting Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty.

CLERK: Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2010, the sum of $50,000,000.

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2010, the sum of $50,000,000."

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, it is late in the day and I hate to disappoint my colleagues here. I am not sure what the clock says, but I thought I had an hour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Chair, I was going to use whatever time was allotted to me, but in the interest of brevity I will take fifteen minutes. I will keep my comments a little bit shorter than that. Do I hear cheering in the background?

Mr. Chairman, on May 19, 2009, government announced that it will provide financial benefits for workers displaced by the closure of the AbitibiBowater mill in Central Newfoundland. Benefits to be provided include severance for mill workers, unionized and non-unionized, silviculturists and loggers, and certain entitlements under the Work Force Reduction Program and Early Retirement Allowance program. It is proposed that we would provide, as indicated by the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, work with the unions to make sure that these monies get into the hands of the workers.

Mr. Chairman, there are several groups that are entitled to benefits and there are several categories of assistance that will be provided. The estimated cost associated with these benefits are as follows: the severance for the unionized inside workers is approximately $22,806,000; the severance for the non-union employees is $8,550,000; the severance for the unionized outside workers is $6,855,000; the Work Force Reduction Program is $5,500,000; Early Retirement Allowance of $2,601,600; and union administration costs of $1.5 million.

Mr. Chairman, this measure arises, or the need for Supplementary Supply arises as a result as the unfortunate situation that workers find themselves in. We have heard the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, on numerous occasions, explain government's position. We have heard the Premier, on numerous occasions, outline our commitment to the area.

At this point, I would also certainly not only like to say to the people of Grand Falls-Windsor and Central Newfoundland area that our commitment continues to this area, but also that the members for that area have worked especially hard on their behalf in terms of the three MHAs that we have in the area. This has been a difficult situation for all people, and when you have a community as proud and as self-sufficient as Grand Falls-Windsor to encounter the times that they have, it is fortunate that as a government we can come in and do what we have been able to do here.

One of the reasons we are able to do that is as a result of what I will refer to, and what I keep referring to, as our prudent fiscal management over the last number of years. In Budget 2009 we announced our surplus again, that this year was $2.4 million, although $1.1 million of that would have actually been a (inaudible) figure from the 2005 Atlantic Accord.

Mr. Chairman, this fourth consecutive surplus has allowed us, or has put us in a position where we can weather the economic storm that engulfs this world. Now, I do not know if the speech of President Clinton was televised today - I know some members of this hon. House were there - but President Clinton recognized, and reviewed in some detail, how this economic storm has engulfed us, and the consequences that, on a global scene, has caused. President Clinton talked about what has happened in Eastern Europe and Western Europe, how there have been 30 million people laid off in China.

In this House in October, I think it was, or November, when we were here, the Opposition was asking us: What plan do you have in place? What are you going to do to deal with the recession?

Mr. Chairman, I had become Finance Minister on October 31, and at that point we indicated that we were going to do that which was advised to us by economists, but that which we have been doing for the last number of years since we took power in 2003. We were going to continue to create employment. We were going to continue, when we could, to reduce debt. I have said it before, and I will say it time and time again, that one of the greatest achievements of this government from an economic perspective is the fact that we reduced a debt that was almost $12 billion in 2003 to $7.9 billion as of the end of March.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Former Premier Frank McKenna of New Brunswick today said that this was unheard of. When he introduced President Clinton, he said that this was unheard of in the world today, that a government could reduce a debt by $4 billion in such a short period of time.

Mr. Chairman, that is what allows us, though - it is by spending money on infrastructure that we are looking to the future. It is by reducing debt that allows us to deal with the day when the storm hits, and this storm has hit this country in a devastating way.

I attended a meeting of Federal-Provincial Finance Ministers on Monday in Ottawa, and the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney, described this recession as the worst recession since World War II. There are economists and commentators who say this is the worst recession since the Great Depression.

What we have done in this Province, by preparing, by managing our finances, we have prepared for this. So, when something happens in Grand Falls-Windsor we can be there for our people and we can say to them we will do what we can.

Mr. Chairman, I come back to December. I remember the day this happened because, unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to be in the House. I think it was December 17. I was at another finance ministers' meeting in Saskatoon when this House brought in the AbitibiBowater expropriation act. I am not quite certain what the act was called.

Mr. Chair, if we had not done that, where would we be today?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, I will certainly give credit to the Opposition, Mr. Chair, that as is our want, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians came together when the time was right, in a time of crisis and we said we have to move quickly because that company was not to be trusted. What has the last few months shown us, as we see what they have done, as we see what they continue to do in Quebec, as we see what they have done in Ontario?

Mr. Chair, by taking these steps, we are now in a position where we can deal with these unionized and non-unionized workers. Mr. Chair, we have stepped forward, because these are a proud people in Central Newfoundland. These are people who have worked all of their lives. It is a mill I think that goes back - I am not quite certain, I think it is 1905. It is a situation that developed a town, an area that grew around this mill.

Mr. Chair, by taking the steps we took we have placed ourselves in a position to help them. So that is what this Supplementary Supply is about.

Just a couple of more words on the Budget, Mr. Chair, before I finish my comments. This year we were faced with a choice as a government because what I would suggest to you, Mr. Chair, we are truly a Progressive Conservative government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Conservative in terms of our fiscal policies, conservative in paying down debt and realizing the importance of debt, in reducing taxes, but, Mr. Chair, progressive in terms of our social programs, progressive in terms of our commitment to the people of this Province. We could have done what other provinces did this year. We could have cut programming. We could have imposed wage restraints. We did not do any of that.

Mr. Chair, I wish there was a camera in the room the other night when we were at this dinner with the finance ministers, and we were all giving a little summary. I was talking to - not only did we not cut wages we increased wages by 21 per cent. The nurses, in fact, by the time they signed off, would have been 27 per cent to 31 per cent. The look on the faces of the other ministers, Mr. Chair, was one of disbelief, that this Province in these economic times could be offering these kinds of wages. What we are saying to our people is we value the commitment, we value the service that you provide to us, and even in these darkest economic times we are going to be there to help out, and, Mr. Chair, that is what we have done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Chair, we could have said no, we are not going to do that; we are going to balance our budget at all costs. We chose not to, Mr. Chair, because these surpluses, which I think add up to about $4.2 billion, allowed us to weather or hope to weather this storm.

Mr. Chair, we said: therefore we will incur a deficit, a one-time, maybe a second year deficit but not a systemic deficit. Now, Mr. Chair, what have we heard in Ottawa? A $35 billion deficit a couple of months ago is now $50 billion. Now someone has to pay for that; at some point there has to be a cutting of programs. There has to be a raising of taxes. Nothing is free. So what we are hoping, Mr. Chair, is that our deficit will be one year.

I am going to end very quickly as I promised my colleagues, but let's look at our $750 million deficit; $414 million comes from the unilateral movement of the Harper government in changing the 1985 accord. I had the opportunity to very politely and very coolly remind Finance Minister Flaherty of that the other day, and that we did not appreciate the way it was done, that it was given without any notice to us. Then we have $383 million in pension charges of various types, but we have heard in this House that our pension funds have come up significantly in a short period of time.

Now, today before I came in this House I - as is my wont, two or three times a day - went into Bloomberg.com. The price of oil today is at almost sixty-four dollars. So where we are, is that that fifty-dollar oil that we budgeted on is now at sixty-four and the analysts are predicting that it could go higher, but what we are looking at is using our money wisely. The way we have done it is through our aggressive infrastructure program. There will be more news on this, hopefully in the next week or two.

Another one of the complaints we had at the finance ministers' meeting was infrastructure was not getting out the door. So we announced an $800-million infrastructure package early in February. Mr. Chair, to this point, we used a projected expenditure commitment of $750 million and almost 50 per cent of that is either – 50.1 per cent is either tendered or awarded at this point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: That is $375 million. Now, we have heard the federal – and we appreciate the monies we are getting from the federal government. There is no one criticizing that. We are getting our share, which is what we want, but I want to put something in perspective. We have heard from Minister MacKay and we have heard from Senator Manning and they have been down demonstrating their largesse to this Province. Well, where does that $750 million come from? Six hundred and thirty-one point five million of that is this government, the provincial government, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Eighty-three million was a federal contribution and the municipalities are $35.5 million.

Now, Mr. Chair, it is too bad I do not have time today, as I promised my colleagues that I would not go too long, but I would like to - if you went through the list of these infrastructure projects, Mr. Chair, right across this Province showing this government's commitment to all areas of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Sometimes the criticism will be levelled at us. Well what are you doing for rural Newfoundland and Labrador? Well, Mr. Chair, it is too bad we do not have time to outline and go through what we are doing for rural Newfoundland and Labrador because the amounts of money that is being spent is absolutely amazing. What are we spending them on? Hospitals, schools, roads, bridges and looking after our people by providing programs that are needed and that our people deserve.

So, Mr Chair, under section 54 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867 there has to be a message from the Lieutenant-Governor, as we have done. The Financial Administration Act states that the approval of the Legislature is required for an expenditure of public money out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and, Mr. Chair, that is what this bill is about.

Finally, Mr. Chair, I want to end these comments which, if not the last will be close to the last comments in this session of the House, by saying what a pleasure it has been to serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador over the last six to eight months in this House. It has been a difficult time with all of the collective bargaining, and the nurses got their well-deserved raise and hopefully, Mr. Chair, we will continue to –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: - encourage our workers to give their best as we know they will. What we say to the nurses is, thank you for all of the effort you put into our health care system and we will get to where we want to go.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, I would also like say thank you - and the Government House Leader said that was the third time I have said in conclusion. So this time I mean it, and I would just like to –

AN HON. MEMBER: Ten seconds left.

MR. KENNEDY: Five seconds left.

In any event, Mr. Chair, thank you very much and okay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Schedule.

CHAIR: Shall the schedule carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, schedule 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: Whereas it appears that the sums mentioned are required to defray certain additional expenses of the Public Service of Newfoundland and Labrador, for the financial year ending March 31, 2010 and for other purposes relating to the Public Service.

CHAIR: Shall the preamble carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, preamble carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2010 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: 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.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt this motion?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Member for the District of Placentia & St. Mary's and the Assistant Deputy Speaker.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred, and have directed me to report that they have adopted a certain resolution granting supply to her majesty, and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect thereto.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of Supply reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred, and have directed him to report that the Committee have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same, and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the report be received?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted, committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the resolution be now read a first time.

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

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: First reading of resolution.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board that the resolution be now read a second time.

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

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: Second reading of the resolution.

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, for leave to introduce the Supplementary Supply, Bill 34, and I further move that the said bill be now read first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2010 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service, Bill 34, the Supplementary Bill, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the minister shall have leave to introduce the Supplementary Supply bill, and that this bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance, to introduce a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2010 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service, carried. (Bill 34)

CLERK: An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2010 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board, that the Supplementary Supply bill be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 34 be now read a second time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: Second reading of Bill 34.

On motion, Bill 34 read a second time.

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

MS BURKE: I move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board that the Supplementary Supply bill be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 34 be now read a third time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: Third reading of Bill 34.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 34 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2010 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 34)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, that clears the Order Paper. We will certainly proceed now with the Royal Assent.

MR. SPEAKER: The next item would be for the Royal Assent of the legislation that is passed here in the House of Assembly during this session, so the House will now take a brief recess until His Honour, the Administrator, arrives. The Chair will ring the bells and ask members to return to their seats again momentarily.

This House is now recessed.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Mr. Speaker, His Honour the Administrator has arrived.

MR. SPEAKER: Admit His Honour the Administrator.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: All rise.

[His Honour the Administrator takes the Chair]

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: It is the wish of His Honour the Administrator that all present please be seated.

MR. SPEAKER: Your Honour, it is my agreeable duty on behalf of Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, Her Faithful Commons in Newfoundland and Labrador, to present to Your Honour a bill for the appropriation of Supply granted in the present session.

CLERK: An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2010 And For Other Purposes Related To The Public Service. (Bill 34)

ADMINISTRATOR (Hon. J. Derek Green): In Her Majesty's name, I thank Her Loyal Subjects, I accept their benevolence, and I assent to this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: May it please Your Honour, the General Assembly of the Province has at its present session passed certain bills, to which, in the name and on behalf of the General Assembly I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act Respecting Apologies." (Bill 1)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act." (Bill 3)

A bill, "An Act To Consolidate The Law Respecting Revenue Administration." (Bill 4)

A bill, "An Act To Repeal The Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund Act." (Bill 5)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act." (Bill 6)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act." (Bill 7)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Chiropractors." (Bill 8)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act." (Bill 9)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act." (Bill 10)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Credit Unions." (Bill 11)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pharmacy Act." (Bill 12)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Children's Law Act." (Bill 13)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act." (Bill 14)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act." (Bill 15)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan Guarantee Act, 1957." (Bill 16)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Control Act." (Bill 17)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Judicature Act." (Bill 18)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Savings Plans Act." (Bill 19)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Research And Development Council Act. (Bill 20)

A bill, An Act Respecting The Registration Of Deeds And Other Documents. (Bill 21)

A bill, An Act Respecting Consumer Protection And Business Practices. (Bill 22)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act. (Bill 23)

A bill, An Act Respecting The Registration Of Births, Marriages, Deaths And Other Vital Events. (Bill 24)

A bill, An Act Respecting Marriage In The Province. (Bill 25)

A bill, An Act To Provide For Change Of Name. (Bill 26)

A bill, An Act Respecting The Public Trustee. (Bill 27)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill 28)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 29)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Wild Life Act. (Bill 30)

A bill, An Act To Repeal The Government-Kruger Agreements Act. (Bill 31)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. (Bill 32)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act. (Bill 33)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, The Child Care Services Act, The Child, Youth And Family Services Act And The Regional Health Authorities Regulations. (Bill 35)

A bill, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Rail Service. (Bill 36)

ADMINISTRATOR: In Her Majesty's Name, I assent to these bills.

His Honour the Administrator leaves the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker returns to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Please be seated.

Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it is moved and seconded that when this House adjourns today, it stands adjourned to the call of the Chair. The Speaker, or in his absence from the Province, the Deputy Speaker, may give notice and thereupon the House shall meet at the time and date stated by the notice of the proposed sitting, and it moved that this House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I move the adjournment, I want to take the opportunity to wish members a safe summer and to enjoy doing what they do best and that is out working in their constituencies, and the people that gave us the great privilege to serve here. I thank members for their co-operation and respecting decisions made by the Chair and respecting other members' privileges while this House was in session.

I thank hon. members.

This House now stands adjourned until the call of the Chair.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

On motion, the House adjourned to the call of the Chair.