December 9, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 55


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we would like to welcome thirty-nine Level II students from Botwood Collegiate, in the wonderful District of Exploits. Their visit is a joint project of their school and the Botwood Boys and Girls Club. They are accompanied by their chaperons Perry Chippett, Gloria Cooper, and Gloria Evans.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Trinity North; the hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans; and the hon. the Member for the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate a large group of volunteers in Clarenville for taking the initiative to organize the first ever Newfoundland and Labrador Masters Games.

Mr. Speaker, this March, the first two weekends in March of this year, from Friday, March 4, to Sunday, March 6, and from Friday, March 11, to Sunday, March 13, Clarenville will be playing host to the first ever Newfoundland and Labrador Masters Games.

These are a set of games that are modeled after the winter and summer games, for those residents of the Province who are over the age of forty-five. So, Mr. Speaker, there are many members of this House who have aspired to be new athletes, and now can have a chance to relive their youth and, once again, lace on the skates or tie on the skis and to participate in the first ever Masters Games in Clarenville.

Mr. Speaker, this is a tremendous initiative undertaken by a group of volunteers who have put a tremendous amount of work into this in the last couple of months, particularly, getting themselves organized for March, and we expect to have over 500 participants in each of those weekends, some 1,000 participants over two weekends, converging on Clarenville, all of whom will be over the age of forty-five, so there will be lots of Absorbine Jr. and Ben Gay sold for the following weeks beyond that. I ask any members of this House who fall into that category of forty-five and over, to get ready and start conditioning themselves.

Mr. Speaker, this is another good example, I think, of how my community has recognized that growing older is not necessarily a time to slow down. This is an example of an initiative that fosters healthy aging, and I commend that group of volunteers for undertaking what we hope to be a start of something that will continue well into the future.

I say to my colleague, the Minister of Tourism, that he should undertake this as a departmental initiative and to enshrine this just like we now have the summer and winter games, but look at our aging population staying active.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a distinguished constituent of mine who passed away on September 19 of this year.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Calvin Buglar began his working career at the Harbour Breton cottage hospital but soon moved to the Harbour Breton fish plant where he worked for thirty-eight years until his sudden death at the age of fifty-eight.

Calvin served with the executive of the local union at the plant and, for a number of years, was the local union president. During his career, he was also responsible for the Occupational Health and Safety Committee at the plant. At the time of his death, he was the chief engineer and maintenance manager for the Harbour Breton facility.

Mr. Speaker, it was well known that Calvin took his job very seriously and was always present, ensuring the successful operation of the plant.

Some years ago, Calvin was an active member of the Bay d'Espoir-Fortune Bay Integrated School Board. He also played a vital role in the municipal politics of Harbour Breton, serving on council from 1977 to 1992 and, during this time, was mayor of the community for five years. Mr. Speaker, Calvin was the mayor as we successfully acquired a new arena for Harbour Breton, the first for the region.

Mr. Speaker, I knew Calvin personally for many years as a friend and as an individual who dedicated much of his time to the growth and success of his community.

I ask all members of the House to join me in extending condolences to his wife Dorothy and their four children.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a resident of Grand Falls-Windsor who has accomplished something that no other Newfoundlander or Labradorian has ever done before.

Mr. Scott Critch, who attended a certification camp in Winnipeg, Manitoba, in October of this year, has now become the first internationally sanctioned basketball referee from Newfoundland and Labrador. Just being invited to attend this camp is considered to be a great honour. Certification is the ultimate reward.

A regular referee at Memorial University Seahawks basketball games, you may now be able to find Critch refereeing anywhere on this continent or overseas. You may even see Mr. Critch going shoulder to shoulder with some of the NBA's greats in the future.

Mr. Speaker, residents of Grand Falls-Windsor have watched Scott Critch grow as an official from local league games to provincial competitions, to Varsity games, and now to the world stage, and we are all so very proud of him.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating Scott Critch on his recent graduation to the field of international competition, and extend best wishes for his continued success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a truly exceptional young lady who has recently been awarded an academic prize for exceptional performance.

Mr. Speaker, twenty-one-year-old Anna Robinson from Harbour Grace is the 2005 Rhodes Scholar elect for Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, Anna will begin her studies at the prestigious English school of Oxford next October and will be greatly financially assisted by this Rhodes Scholarship.

Anna is presently in the final year of an honours degree program for Neuroscience at Dalhousie University in Halifax. Mr. Speaker, Anna hopes to continue her education until she meets her final goal of studying medicine and becoming a doctor.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Ann Colbourne of the Rhodes Trust in Newfoundland and Labrador described Anna as: notable for her quiet campus leadership and diverse interests, including singing with the Dalhousie Choral Group, hosting her own student campus radio show, and playing intramural basketball along with numerous other community activities.

The second of four children, Anna is the daughter of Maureen and George Robinson of Harbour Grace. Also, Mr. Speaker, Anna graduated first in her class at Carbonear Collegiate.

Mr. Speaker, the Rhodes Scholarship has been awarded in Newfoundland and Labrador since 1904 and Miss Robinson is the ninety-seventh Newfoundlander to win this award.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating Anna Robinson of Harbour Grace on being 2005s recipient of a Rhodes Scholarship.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and as many members are aware, that an Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act, Bill 38, has been passed here in the House of Assembly, making Compassionate Care Leave available to workers in Newfoundland and Labrador.

This amendment to the Labour Standards Legislation will ensure workers in our Province have the ability to deal with important family issues and crises without having to worry about job protection. Compassionate Care Leave will give employees the time they need to care for a terminally ill family member without interfering with their employment status.

Mr. Speaker, under Bill 38, employees can take up to eight weeks away from work to care for a family member who faces a significant risk of death within approximately a six-month period.

Employees whose workplaces are regulated by the Labour Standards Act and who take Compassionate Care Leave will be entitled to the same protections that now exist under legislation for maternity and parental leave. Employees cannot be disciplined, demoted or dismissed for taking Compassionate Care Leave.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, an employee has the right to be reinstated in the same or comparable position when returning to work and two or more employees can share the eight weeks of leave to care for the same family member. Employees who are eligible to receive Employment Insurance benefits may claim those benefits for up to six weeks.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this change is significant for the women in our workforce who represent 43 per cent of our full-time workers and 69 per cent of our part-time workers. Traditionally, women spend more time than men with child and family care responsibilities and balancing home and work life can be a difficult challenge. It is my hope that the benefits and job protection provided with Compassionate Care Leave will have a positive impact on women and improve their attachment to the workforce.

Mr. Speaker, officials of the Labour Relations Agency consulted with business, labour and health stakeholders on this issue. I am very pleased to report that I will support the implementation of Compassionate Care Leave.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advanced copy of her ministerial statement and to say that yes, it was indeed an honour to be sitting in the House when An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act, Bill 38, was brought before this House just last week. A great piece of legislation that was brought forth, and a tremendous amount of work done by the former Administration. When it came before this House all members concurred with it and agreed unanimously that this piece of bill would get through the House of Assembly.

I am also pleased to say that, no doubt about it, the people of this Province will be pleased with this legislation now knowing that they do not have the concerns about their employment status when they stay at home to care for terminally and gravely ill members of the family. I also agree with the minister, the tremendous positive impact this will have on the women within our workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that this government must be running short on good news stories. Here we are - debated a piece of legislation on December 2 and December 3, and here we are -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: No, it is not a bad news story, sir, but there cannot be too many good news stories when we have to bring legislation forward in a ministerial statement just six or seven days after it was passed here in the House.

I say, Mr. Speaker, if this is the new approach of this government, I cannot imagine how desperate they are to come up with a good news story.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement. I am pleased today to rise and say a few words about Bill 38, because Bill 38 had its beginnings in the Parliament of Canada by a motion proposed by Peter Stoffer of the NDP to make amendments to the EI act that would allow for this very thing to take place. So, I am very proud to say that. I am proud to see that we have finally passed legislation that we called for last spring, so as to make the proper amendments and pass the proper legislation so that women, generally in our society, would not have to pay a price by taking leave for compassionate care. I say women, because as the minister indicated, it is mostly -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. COLLINS: As the minister herself indicated, it is mostly female workers who are affected by this, and I am glad to see that this bill is finally being passed.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers. Oral questions.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Derrick Rowe of FPI has publicly acknowledged that he has two masters. In his words in the public media: My Board of Directors and the government. Both masters, Mr. Speaker. The board seeking to maximize profits for the shareholders and the government have agreed to close Harbour Breton outright and let Fortune choose its own way to die.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, who stated yesterday outside the Legislature that the Bonavista plant is old and will have to replaced or eventually have the operations moved to Port Union; his words, outside the Legislature yesterday. What discussions has the minister had with FPI regarding Bonavista's uncertain future?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can say without any fear of contradiction that I have had the same discussion with the people at FPI about Bonavista and Port Union as I have had with the Fishermen's Union and the representatives of the plant local on the future of Bonavista and Port Union. It is well-known, Mr. Speaker, for probably about ten years now, that FPI has been considering either a new facility in Bonavista or a movement to Port Union.

Mr. Speaker, the discussions that I have had with FPI and with the people at the plant local in Bonavista are that FPI is going to continue to operate Bonavista. A large part of what happens in Bonavista is going to depend on what happens with crab quotas; as I suspect, Mr. Speaker, will be the case with many crab plants around this Province. That is the discussion. That has been well-known for ten years. It was well-known when they were in government, it continues to be well-known in Bonavista amongst the plant workers, amongst everybody in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this same minister promised, and these again are his own words: There would be no layoffs at FPI plants unless they were negotiated between the company and the union; his words. Is the minister now saying, Mr. Speaker, that the union has negotiated and agreed to layoffs in Harbour Breton and Fortune?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition and some of the members of his party have on occasion over the past three weeks referenced a press release that was put out in 2002, I believe it was - 2001 or 2002. Now that press release was put out in the context of a change in the operations in Harbour Breton - proposed changes in Harbour Breton, Fortune and Marystown. At that time, Mr. Speaker, we suggested that the FFAW and FPI, I suggested, that they should take the same approach that they took in Port aux Choix when FPI made the decision to tear down their old plant and build a new state-of-the-art shrimp plant at the time. I said at that time that any changes in the workforce in those operations should be done and achieved through a negotiation, Mr. Speaker. That is what I said at that time. That is what I say again now.

In this case, Mr. Speaker, we have a situation where foreign-sourced cod has gone in price through the roof, and there have been substantial changes in world marketplace. That, Mr. Speaker, is having an impact on all parts of our seafood industry in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see him now changing his words -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see him now changing his words, because they were not the words he spoke in that press release.

Mr. Speaker, the minister said that the President of the Fisheries Union, the President of FFAW, Mr. Earle McCurdy, sat in the meeting ten days ago with the minister, the Premier, and Mr. Derrick Rowe of FPI, when Fortune's future was discussed, and that Mr. McCurdy said nothing.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has always contended -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Leader of the Opposition now if he could get to his question immediately.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier has always contended that if you say nothing, you agree.

I ask the minister, knowing that government is one of Mr. Rowe's two masters, what did you and the Premier say to Mr. Rowe about the Fortune plant future?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Leader of the Opposition is careless with the truth again today. I said last week, in this House of Assembly, that we did meet with -

MR. REID: Stand up for the people you represent!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, would you mind gagging the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, so I can answer the question that the Leader of the Opposition asked?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: If he does not want to hear the answer, I can easily sit down, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair asks for all members to be co-operative with each other - the people who are asking the questions, also the people who are on the government side, and the ministers who are responding.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There are still members who are shouting across the floor of the House. The Chair has asked members for their co-operation, and I would ask them to respect the authority of the Chair in that regard.

The Chair again asks the minister to complete his answer.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, we met, as the Leader of the Opposition said, about ten days ago. We were informed, at that time, in the presence of all -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, will you please gag those people so I can answer the questions that are being asked of me?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Again, the Chair asks all members for their co-operation.

For a few more seconds, the Chair will recognize the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, ten days ago we did meet with Derrick Rowe, Graham Roome, Earle McCurdy, myself and the Premier, in the Premier's boardroom. We were informed of the options that were presented by FPI to the FFAW and the plant workers at Fortune at that time. We had a discussion about the challenges that the fishing industry is facing here as a result of the increasing cost of raw material being sourced overseas, from Norway and Russia, to be produced here in our Province. At that time, I have to say, we had a very frank discussion about it. I never, ever, said that Mr. McCurdy agreed or disagreed with it. I never said that he stayed quiet and, as such, agreed with what was being said. He can answer for himself on this, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the minister for his answer.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in Hansard, which is the verbatim record of what was said here yesterday, his words were: It was not challenged by Mr. McCurdy.

Mr. Speaker, my next question is this -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: My next question is this - and, again, I understand that members opposite would like for us to be gagged, but we were elected to speak for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and we will continue to do it, Mr. Speaker, as long as we have breath!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: As long as we can stand here - it is a democracy, Mr. Speaker. They might be gagged in their caucus. We are not going to be gagged, I can tell you that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, the Chair asks all members for their co-operation, where members on all sides of the House show mutual respect in a parliamentary forum for each other.

I again pass the speaking to the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is an important issue with respect to a closure in Harbour Breton, choose your way to die in Fortune, and a government doing nothing about it.

Mr. Speaker, the federal MP, Mr. Bill Matthews, for the communities of Harbour Breton and Fortune, has said publicly that the minister and the Premier are sitting idly by and allowing the utter destruction of the FPI Act. Mr. Matthews, the federal MP, is fighting for community-based quotas in his meetings with the federal Minister of Fisheries.

Again, I ask the minister: Will this government put their full support behind Mr. Mathews' request, as the MP, or are they just going to let the company keep the quota and do what they like with it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, our primary concern has been and always will be that the quotas associated with any fish company in this Province, and any fish that has been caught by vessels, by fishermen, by plant workers of this Province continues to remain in this Province. That is our first and primary concern, Mr. Speaker.

Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, we have said time and again that we will be working with the people of Harbour Breton - I said this when I was in Harbour Breton a couple of days ago - we will work with the people of Harbour Breton to try to identify a way forward for them. If, as a result of that piece of work with an IAS committee and what have you - if, as a result of a piece of that work - at the end of the day it is determined that quotas and quota acquisition is a piece of the solution, then we will support the people of Harbour Breton in that.

That, Mr. Speaker, is what I said last week. It is what I said the day before yesterday in Harbour Breton, and I say it again today. Mr. Speaker, that was what we did in Arnold's Cove when the time came and the chips were down. We came through for the people, unlike some other members did previously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This final question is for the minister. Mr. Speaker, outside the Legislature, this minister has gone further and suggested no only for FPI but for the fishery generally in Newfoundland and Labrador - and these again are his exact words: The solution lies in a lesser number of plants running for a longer period of time.

Now that he has publicly admitted the real agenda of this government with respect to the fishery and rural Newfoundland and Labrador, can he tell us: What does it mean? What does that mean, if that is the position of the government, for communities like Englee, Anchor Point, Black Duck Cove, La Scie and Triton, just to name a few, Mr. Speaker? Is the government, I ask him, going to continue to side with the big business fish processors and let the fish plant workers and their communities disappear?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I admit freely that I said those words outside of the House of Assembly, and I have said them for the last four years since I got into political life, and I said it before I got into political life.

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to have a strong processing sector and a strong seafood industry in this Province, then we need to have strong processing operations that run for a longer period of time. The alternative, Mr. Speaker, is to accept what the previous administration did for the past twelve to fifteen years, to allow the processing workers in this Province, Mr. Speaker, to try and live on less than $10,000 a year in earned income. That, Mr. Speaker, is what their legacy for the seafood industry in this Province has been, and that legacy also translates into about 25 per cent of the people in the processing sector relying on make-work projects to get by.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: That must be according to Danny, and you are going right along with him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, Russ Carrigan of FPI said yesterday, in a press release, that neither of the two options proposed by the company comes with any guarantees.

Why then, Minister, don't you support the workforce in Fortune who would prefer to continue to process fish at Fortune than move to Marystown, knowing that if there is a shortage of raw material in Marystown the workforce in Fortune will be the first to go since they cannot carry their seniority with them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have never said that I was against the maintaining of the Fortune operation. Never! I have said that there have been two options presented to the people of Fortune, and it is up to them to decide. If they decide that they want to continue on in an operation in Fortune that relies solely on locally sourced cod, Mr. Speaker, that is their decision. If that is the decision that they make, then that is the decision that I respect and the decision I will support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Minister, with all due respect, that option, you know, is not there for the employees of Fortune, for two hundred and twenty-some-odd employees to work at that plant. As Russ Carrigan said, for them to accept that option would be like driving off a cliff. Clearly, FPI is not giving them that option. I am asking you to stand up to FPI and exercise your authority under the Act.

There are over seventy people waiting anxiously to be called back at the fish plant in Marystown, Minister. There is a real danger that these people may not even get the number of weeks they need to qualify for EI. Is the Minister aware that this second option for the workforce in Fortune to go to Marystown is causing concern among the workers at the fish plant in Marystown?

Minister, you must see that FPI is pitting community against community. What are you going to do about it, with the authority you have under the FPI Act?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I understand full-well the challenges that the people in Fortune and the people in Marystown are confronted with. I understand that fully and I sympathize with them, but for me to stand up here today and suggest that I have the authority to keep Fortune open at the level that it has been maintained at in recent years when it has been operating on foreign source fish, Mr. Speaker, it would be totally misleading of me and I refuse to do it.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, the fish that FPI has in its quota allocations are being processed in this Province. They have been processed between Bonavista, Fortune, Marystown, Harbour Breton and other facilities around the Province, and that is continuing.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what the member is asking me to do is force FPI to continue operations at the level they were at in recent years, and the only way I can do that is to force them somehow to procure fish from outside this Province because we do not have it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Minister, unfortunately you have become part of the challenge and not the solution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Yesterday in this House you continued to defend the callous actions of FPI and you are failing to acknowledge they have a moral responsibility. You are failing to forget that they are a creation of the taxpayers of this Province to the tune of $252 million. I am asking you now, Minister, to tell FPI that neither of the options they are proposing are acceptable to you or the workforce or the government of today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In case the member forgets, the people of this Province and the Government of Canada decided in 1987 to privatize FPI, just as the Government of Canada decided recently to privatize Petro-Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, it is a private operation. I am not defending FPI's actions. I will say this: Where were the hon. members opposite when FPI, during the 1990s, closed down everything else they had in this Province? Where were their insightful suggestions then, Mr. Speaker? Where was the authority in the FPI Act to order FPI to maintain 850 people in St. Anthony when they closed it down in 1992? They did not have it because it was not there. The authority in the FPI Act was on the 15 per cent ownership (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On September 20 the Premier held a news conference to discuss the secret Memorandum of Understanding he had signed with the Sino corporation for the potential development of the Lower Churchill. During this news conference he also announced a call for Expressions of Interest that invited all potential components interested in developing the Lower Churchill to express their intentions to government.

I ask the Minister of Natural Resources, the call for Expressions of Interest were to have taken place in October, that time has come and past. Can the minister update the House as to the status of that call for Expressions of Interest?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition says it is a good question, and so it is, and I will attempt to give a good answer. We had hoped to be able to do that this morning, but we will be doing it Monday morning.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the minister might also tell us, now that we know when they will be issued, will he provide a copy to us when they are issued or will this also be done in secret?

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I caught what my hon. colleague was saying, he said a copy of it to them. A copy of what? A copy of the press release? What is it they would like? If I may, if you would not mind telling me exactly what you are looking for, and I will attempt to do my best to answer it.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The press release issued by the Premier on September 20 this year indicated that the Calls for Expression would have the details of what exactly the government wanted. It referenced, as well, criteria that the government would be grading these submissions by. I am wondering if the minister would reveal to us when he sends it out to everybody - everybody should know the criteria that the government is going to grade their proposals by. Will we get a copy of what he issues on Monday, along with the criteria that the government will use to grade these proposals vis-B-vis the Lower Churchill Development?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, let me see if I can reveal some of it now. The EOI process is about taking a world-class, globally classed, potential resource, putting it out to subscribers across the planet and the globe, many of which the Premier and myself have met with, in an attempt to secure the best deal possible. It does not mean dealing only with Quebec, like the former Administration did. That is what it doesn't mean.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, it means that we have a greater confidence in ourselves and in our resources about what we can do with them than the former Administration had. Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, it means this, it means -

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, he is not answering the (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what it does mean is that we will be outlining, in due course - I gave the member an answer. We will be outlining next week all that will be available with that. Whatever we release publicly next week will be released to everybody and everyone will know (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is what concerns us, in due course. It is never timely and it is never open. It always seems to be at their time schedule and whatever suits them.

Mr. Speaker, it was discussed that one of the parties in the Sino group, China National Machinery & Equipment Import & Export Corporation was under investigation in the United States for possible terrorist links. The Premier undertook to investigate these allegations and the company. Could the minister advise if this investigation is complete? If so, what were the findings and will you make them public?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am perplexed, and I do not mind saying I am perplexed. The hon. member says on the one hand that is the problem, it is never timely and it is never public. Does anybody recall several weeks ago when we released a televised tape by the Leader of the Opposition saying there was a deal on the Lower Churchill?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I do not know about them, Mr. Speaker, I have no idea about them but I do know that he stood right here, as Premier of the Province, and said there was no deal, while he was ready to go to the people of the Province with a tape with a signed deal. That is what I do know, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary to Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: The minister is very good at deflection, but again, not good at substantive answers.

Minister, you signed a confidentiality agreement with the Sino group on May 21 of this year. On May 20, in this very House, twenty-four hours before that, I asked you in Estimates Committee if there were any discussions ongoing about the Lower Churchill. You advised me at that time, page 182, no. Now, minister, twenty-four hours later this confidentiality agreement gets signed. Which is it, minister, were you either part of the negotiations and the discussions that led to the May 21 agreement or did you unilaterally rubber stamp an agreement that was done in the Premier's office the next day?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. First of all, there was no agreement signed with anybody. What was established with the Sino corporation was a Memorandum of Understanding to share information. That is all it was. No more, no less.

Mr. Speaker, the Sino corporation first came to the Province when they knocked on my door, as the Minister of Natural Resources, in January. The reason why the member has the MOU - do you know why? Because this government released it. That is why he has it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: First of all, let's be clear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: We released everything associated with the Memorandum of Understanding.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: I can answer the question if they would -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I ask members for their co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Acting Premier.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Newfoundland and Labrador Government discriminated against women in the public service, contrary to the Charter of Rights, by paying them less than their male colleagues, as was acknowledged by Premier Peckford. It also ruled that the Wells government discriminated against women public servants by reversing pay equity agreements Peckford made, but that the legislation was not unconstitutional. Will this government, on this, the eve of International Day of Human Rights, commit to honouring the pay equity agreement and reversing the discrimination which took pay equity from women in our public service?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it perfectly clear that the recent court decision was no moral victory for the women of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, back in the early 1990s, a decision was made that pay equity would not be paid to the women of this Province, based on the fiscal situation of this Province. Unfortunately, over the last fifteen years there were no real attempts made to improve that fiscal situation; and, as a result, those women have never been paid what they were owed and what they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, our fiscal situation right now gives us a debt of $11.5 billion. That means, for every man, woman and child in this Province, their share is $22,142. We are not in a better fiscal situation today. We are actually worse than what were in 1990, but, I will say to the hon. member, that is no excuse for the fact that women were discriminated against.

I cannot make a commitment -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the supplementary question.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Justice.

I say to the minister that government is acting very aggressively to collect student debts, much of which is unmanageable because of high student debt loads. They do that, Mr. Speaker, without consideration of their personal situation.

This week I had a constituent who, in the 1990s, was forced to drop out of a private college before she finished her program because she was diagnosed with MS, and she has doctor's documentation to support that. She now finds herself confined, unable to work, with two children, and she is being dragged through the courts by the Justice Department and being sued. I ask the minister: Will the minister take action to have this lawsuit dropped?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I am not personally familiar with the case that the hon. member has raised, but I will undertake to investigate and report back to the hon. member in the near future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: I appreciate the answer, Mr. Speaker, from the minister.

I want to say to the minister, as well, while he is investigating this situation, will he instruct his officials that in the future they will check out people's situations, personal situations, before they initiate court action against them, and if they find that people are disabled and unable to pay - because, let's face it, Mr. Speaker, since changes to the student loan program were announced, students are unable to pay, and there is a difference in being unable to and won't. They are not allowed to declare bankruptcy any more either.

Will the minister take action, instruct his officials to not pursue lawsuits and drag people into courts when they have no ability to pay?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising this. Obviously, this is something that we would take very seriously. I will have it investigated and I will report back to the hon. member as quick as possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is time for one brief question and a brief response.

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, Western Newfoundland and Labrador had several snowstorms in recent days. The Department of Transportation and Works, due to weight constraints, does not salt and sand our roads while using the wing blade to clear the snow back off the highways. There is a directive from the department not to make a second run, due to financial restraints, to either salt and sand the roads or plow the snow with the wing blade down.

Does the minister realize the potential of this Russian roulette? Will the minister immediately order this practice to stop, and make our roads safe and snow free?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. Unfortunately, the Minister of Transportation is unavailable at the present time to answer the question. I am not familiar with the situation that the member asked about. I do recognize that it is a very serious issue, and I will certainly inform the member that immediately after Question Period I will endeavor to find out the status of the situation, have it looked into, and report back to him some time this afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing And Special Committees?

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with government's commitment to accountability, I hereby submit the 2003-2004 Annual Performance Report for the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. This report addresses the department's activities and outcomes from April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004.

Mr. Speaker, I am also advising hon. members that this report includes information on three external government corporations that reported to the minister in 2003-2004, namely Newfoundland Hardwoods Limited, Newfoundland Ocean Enterprises Limited, and the EDGE Evaluation Board. The 2003-2004 Annual Report of the Business Investment Corporation, a fourth external corporation, was tabled earlier this year.

Mr. Speaker, I also hereby submit the 2003-2004 Annual Report of the Rural Secretariate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. the minister. I am not sure whether the minister is finished with her report or not.

MS DUNDERDALE: Yes, (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Further reports?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment's 2003-2004 Annual Report. In accordance with government's commitment to accountability and transparency, the report outlines the activities and achievements for the period from April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004. The Annual Report for the Social Services Appeal Board is included in this report as well.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the Labour Relations Agency 2003-2004 Annual Report. In accordance with government's commitment to accountability and transparency, this report outlines the activities of the former Department of Labour and the newly created Labour Relations Agency for the period of April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004.

Mr. Speaker, in accordance -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

There is a lot of shouting across the Chamber and the Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. the minister.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with government's commitment to accountability, I hereby submit the 2003-2004 annual performance report for the Women's Policy Office. This report was prepared under my direction and addresses the division's outcomes from April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further reports.

Notices of Motions.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have several notices of motion to give.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The House of Assembly Act. (Bill 65)

In the place of the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act, No 2. (Bill 60)

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act. (Bill 61)

I give further notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act. (Bill 62).

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 63)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act. (Bill 64)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions.

Answers To Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I present another petition, this time actually signed by employees of Riverview Motors in Grand Falls-Windsor and Abitibi waterfront workers in the Town of Botwood, with respect to Bill 45 and the mandatory trail stickers for snowmobiles. Again, the petition, as I read into the record yesterday, signed by another group of people:

WHEREAS the provincial government underwent no public consultation before bringing these changes to the Legislature; and

WHEREAS the fees that are being enacted by this legislation represents a taxation of our culture as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; and

WHEREAS we feel we are being discriminated against by having to pay a fee to use groomed snowmobile trails that we have been using long before the Newfoundland and Labrador Snowmobile Federation started grooming these trails;

WHEREUPON we call upon the provincial government to - not cancel it but - withdraw the legislation until public consultations have been held.

Again, this one is signed by some twenty different residents of Grand Falls-Windsor and Botwood who are avid snowmobilers in their own right, who appreciate groomed trails and hope that there are going to be more of them and have been actually some of the proponents for more groomed trails, but they feel there should be more consultation before this type of legislation that mandates a sticker.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, they do understand that this is a government that promised the Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Federation and others, the outdoor rights association, that there would be an Outdoor Bill of Rights so that things would not be passed over to private interests and also that it is a government that promised there would not be mandatory fees. There would not be mandatory user fees. Some of these same people who have signed this petition, Mr. Speaker, have told me, in my personal conversations with them, that they in fact voluntarily pay the fee. They are supporters and they voluntarily pay the fee. They are not saying that the legislation, at some point, does not need to be but they think there needs to be more time to consult and make sure that some of the issues that have already been debated in this Legislature get further consideration before the government goes to full mandatory fees.

Mr. Speaker, I present that petition again on their behalf. They are very sincere about it and they just hope that the government will allow a little more time and consider some of the other issues that have been raised because these are some supporters of the concept but they just hope that the government will do it right rather than start it and then try to fix some things next year, the year after or the year after that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of the Province and I will read out the pray:

WHEREAS statistics indicate there is one VLT machine for every 155 adults, the highest ratio of any province; and

WHEREAS gambling addiction has increased with the availability of VLTs in restaurants and bars; and

WHEREAS it is estimated that at least 5 per cent of those who gamble, face an addiction which has led to not only costs to society but tragic consequences in the lives of those affected; and

WHEREAS government themselves have become addicted to revenues from gambling;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to direct the government to increase funding for problem gamblers, strictly enforce the existing VLT regulations, and at the very least remove VLTs from venues frequented by individuals under nineteen years of age and for the Province to hold a referendum of banning VLTs in conjunction with municipal elections in 2005.

Mr. Speaker, I was reading an interesting poll yesterday on this very topic. It was a national poll, but the national poll found the highest support, in the 63 per cent to 65 per cent, in favour of banning these machines in Atlantic Canada. I understand that there was a vote conducted in New Brunswick, as the Premier cited the other day, but that vote was very, very close. I think that if the vote was 49-51 in New Brunswick, then obviously that 65 per cent of Canadians polled, I would suggest that the majority of people who were in favour of banning these VLTs probably came from this Province to give the boost to 65 per cent, if New Brunswick was almost 50-50.

I think it is time that government seriously considered the problems and provided the resources that are available. The machines, if you look at clubs and bars around this Province, they can apply to the Liquor Licensing Board for an extra bar licence to create as many as three bars or more in their establishment. These liquor licences that are given out, to increase from one bar to two, three, or more, are not based on liquor sales, not at all. It is a matter of applying and receiving. They are done for one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is to double, triple and quadruple the number of VLTs that they can have in their establishment.

These are things that government can control while we are waiting for the Province to decide whether or not they will support a ban.

I am hopeful, and I hope government will recognize that these machines are creating a lot of problems in our society - problems that we did not have until fourteen years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I laughed the other day when I read Hansard, to find out that the Finance Minister of the day's justification for bringing these into the Province was that if government did not get in front and bring them in, the mafia would move in and take over. I think that is a very poor excuse for a government to justify why they would bring machines of this nature into the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's assigned time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted to continue.

MR. COLLINS: I ask government to seriously consider this, because I do know, from talking to members across, that they have serious problems with this as well. I hope that they will consider allowing residents of the Province to have an opportunity, during the municipal elections, to have this placed on the ballot as a referendum, and abide by the results of the referendum.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again today to present a petition on behalf of the young people in Labrador, in their request to government for an auditorium in the Upper Lake Melville area. I present the petition today on behalf of the children from the community of Cartwright.

Mr. Speaker, I will get right to the point again. The children in Labrador deserve a place where they can gather at different times throughout the year for festivals of different sorts. We just witnessed, I think, the twenty-ninth running of the Creative Arts Festival in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, attended by schools from all across Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this facility is essential to the people in Labrador, and I know that the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has said, many times, that the money was in the account. With the Christmas season so handy, and just around the corner, I would ask this government if they would, on behalf of the Member for Lake Melville, make that commitment to the people today. It is well-deserved, there is no question. It is a facility that children and adults in other parts of this Province enjoy. The children, in particular, in Labrador, deserve such a building. I call upon this government, Mr. Speaker, prior to the Christmas break, to make the announcement to the children in Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of residents in my district, as it relates to the marine services of the Sir Robert Bond from Cartwright. Mr. Speaker, it is because of government's decision last year to relocate the Sir Robert Bond from Cartwright to Lewisporte. Because of that, businesses in the Labrador region lost up to 40 per cent of their sales in revenue last year. Also, people felt that the provincial government was spending excess funds from the Labrador Transportation Initiative to run the Sir Robert Bond out of Lewisporte, and there were residents in the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area who had trouble acquiring reservations and accommodations due to the reduction in the number of departures per week of the Sir Robert Bond between Goose Bay and Cartwright.

Mr. Speaker, the people who signed this petition felt that the service was not being utilized to the best interests of the people of the Province. What they are saying is that: WHEREFORE be it resolved that the petitioners request that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador reconsider their decision and reinstate these services for Labrador to the port of Cartwright whereby increasing the frequency of crossings between Cartwright and Goose Bay to three trips per week.

Mr. Speaker, when government made that decision last spring, I was totally opposed to the decision, and so were people in my district. I laid out, before the House of Assembly at that time, what it would cost to run the Sir Robert Bond from Cartwright to Lewisporte as opposed to doing three trips a week just from Cartwright to Goose Bay.

Mr. Speaker, the numbers that I received from Memorial University's policy division, and from other documentation that was in the department, was that it would cost the government about $1.7 million to run the Sir Robert Bond last year into Lewisporte, a service that people in my district certainly did not want to see.

Mr. Speaker, the government did not even nod at the cost of running that service into Lewisporte, simply because it was going to come out of the Labrador Transportation Fund anyway, not out of the general revenues of government.

Mr. Speaker, we will see the true account of numbers come budget time this year, but let me tell you the true account of numbers on the ferry service last year. In 2003, when the Sir Robert Bond was running between Cartwright and Goose Bay, three trips a week, they carried a lot more passengers and a lot more traffic than they did last year between Lewisporte, Cartwright and Goose Bay. In fact, Mr. Speaker, last year, not only did government reduce the number of services out of Goose Bay per week by running the ferry into Lewisporte, it also reduced its own statistics on that service by almost 600 people.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you something else. Out of the 10,000 people who travelled on the Sir Robert Bond last year, 70 per cent of them travelled between Cartwright and Goose Bay, with only 30 per cent of those passengers using the Lewisporte service.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS JONES: May I have leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Just to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted for some concluding comments.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Minister of Tourism for giving me an extra thirty minutes to speak to this petition.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, out of the 10,000 people who used the service last year -

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Leave has been withdrawn.

Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: What are you talking about? I don't know what the member is talking about. The Speaker has called Orders of the Day, and I am doing my job to get up and move forward with Orders of the Day. If there is anything childish about that, then I have a childish job, Mr. Speaker, but I just don't think so.

Mr. Speaker, the first Order of the Day, I want to move Motion 5, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, and also Motion 6, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. tonight.

With that, Mr. Speaker, Order 13, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act, Bill 57. I believe the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture will move that bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: We will handle them in the order in which they were presented. The hon. the Government House Leader has moved, pursuant to Standing Order 11, the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m. today, Thursday, December 9.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader has also moved, pursuant to Standing Order 11, the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Thursday, December 9, 2004.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

I would ask the hon. the Government House Leader if he could state again the motion that you wish to introduce, for the benefit of the Speaker who was listening but has forgotten.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 13, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act, Bill 57.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 57 be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act." (Bill 57)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure this afternoon to speak for a few minutes on Bill 57, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act.

This is a piece of work that has been some time in the works, since about February last. February, 2004, we indicated that we were going to proceed to do a thorough examination of the Fish Inspection Act, since, in particular, it has not been reviewed since it was - I do not know about if it has been reviewed, but it certainly has not been updated since it was brought in, in the 1960s I guess it was. I think it was 1964, if I am not mistaken. Anyway, it is somewhere around forty-plus years old and, needless to say, I am getting on towards forty years old myself now and I am in need of an overhaul myself some days I think.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we indicated publicly back on February 4 that we were going to have a look at the Fish Inspection Act. Back in 2003 - I guess it was somewhere around June, 2003, the previous Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture announced that there was going to be a commissioner appointed - I believe the Commissioner was appointed in August - to have a look at fish processing licence policy in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Eric Dunne was appointed - I guess it was in August - to do a review of fish processing policy. Coming out of that, as everybody knows, there was a fairly comprehensive report.

One of the substantial pieces of the Dunne report was referenced to the Fish Inspection Act and the need to have a thorough examination of the Fish Inspection Act with a view to modernizing it because of the change in industry. We moved from a groundfish industry, when the act was initially proclaimed, to primarily a shellfish industry today. Even without that type of change, obviously over the course of moving from the 1960s to the twenty-first Century, we would have incurred very substantial changes in the way the industry is carried out anyway. So there was a need for one thing, a housekeeping cleanup of the Fish Inspection Act, and that is part of what this bill is about.

It was also felt by Mr. Dunne that there was a need for several other substantial issues to be addressed as it related to government department's ability to preserve their authority as it related to licencing - their authority, our authority, what have you - as it related to enforceability of certain provisions, preservation of our authority to set conditions of licences, and what have you. There are a substantial number of court challenges, in recent years in particular. In many of those cases government's view of the situation has not always prevailed. That has been, in many cases, because the fish Inspection Act did not provide government with the authority to be able to uphold the decisions that they had taken. Mr. Speaker, there was a recommendation - I think it was a very worthwhile recommendation - by Mr. Dunne for us to do a thorough examination of the Fish Inspection Act and to make some substantial changes to it.

We moved in the Fish Inspection Act, that is before the House here now, for debate over the coming hours and days. There is a move that was recommended by Mr. Dunne. I must say today, because there was some confusion when we debated a previous bill here, and maybe part of it was my fault - but anyway, whether it was or was not is irrelevant. Back on February 4 we accepted, in principle, Mr. Dunne's report. We said that we would implement it in principle, and we are on course to do that. Obviously, some of what Mr. Dunne recommended, when you get down to the particular issues and the practicalities of implementing it, sometimes it presents a challenge to government to be able to implement it to the letter of the recommendation, so to speak.

In this piece here I think we have done a pretty good job, with the exception, probably, of one key recommendation, which was that the Fish Inspection Act - there would be a thorough legislative review conducted on a yearly basis. We felt that was a bit cumbersome. Instead, we have opted for a full legislative review every five years. We think that still provides us with more timeliness than we saw over the past forty years, and will go a long ways toward addressing the challenges that the industry might be faced with, and government might be faced with, going forward; but, to go to a yearly review, we would undoubtedly end up consuming way too much of the government's time and the industry's time just trying to review legislation as opposed to trying to manage the industry.

That is one substantial change there, Mr. Speaker. I think that is probably the biggest one, and probably the only substantial one, from my perspective, from what I can recall anyway. We have moved, as recommended by Mr. Dunne, from always pursuing court action against people when there are infractions, to give the department and the government the authority or the ability to - instead of, as I said, having to pursue court action, lay charges and pursue court action - be able to ticket for minor offences, to administer administrative penalties for defined, more or less, I guess you can say, bookkeeping discrepancies. Failure to provide reports - for example, production reports - in a timely manner would result in an administrative penalty as opposed to a charge being laid. If somebody is failing to handle fish in an appropriate way, maintain adequate levels of ice in cold storage facilities, and those types of things, then that would not be an administrative penalty; that would not fall under the administrative penalty scenario. That would be one where, under the new piece of legislation, we would be able to ticket for that type of an offence, again, as opposed to laying a charge and pursing court action.

We think that it works for government and works for industry in that perspective, so that we still maintain our ability to enforce quality standards, we still maintain our ability to set the operational guidelines, so to speak, of the industry, but we do it in a more effective manner - a manner that does not result in us having to run off to court for every offence that we see. As a matter of fact, it probably strengthens our hand.

Sometimes, I would suggest that government would, maybe for minor offences, be reluctant to lay charges in the past under the old act simply because, for lack of a better way of putting it, the juice is not worth the squeeze. In this case, we would not have to worry about that type of a scenario. There would not have to be an evaluation of it from that perspective. Whether that ever took place, I do not know. I am not suggesting that it did, but it may have or it may in the future; but, under this scenario, and under the new Fish Inspection Act, we would be able to ticket for minor offences, such as the ones that I just referenced, and, as I said, for the failure to comply with reporting processes, reporting procedures and the like, we could impose administrative penalties and what have you.

Mr. Speaker, I think the act, as I said, is, in large part - and I am not saying this to suggest that all this is, is a cleaning up, but I would suggest that 75 per cent of the content of this bill is cleaning up the act. For example, there were references in the old Fish Inspection Act to lobster tomali. I am not sure there is anybody doing much with lobster tomali in Newfoundland and Labrador today, but I suppose there probably was somebody doing something with it back pre-1960s. Therefore, hence, it is referenced in the previous act.

Those types of things have been changed. We have changed wording, from containers to containers or cartons, and those types of things, just to catch the changing nature of the industry today in 2004 versus the nature of the industry back in the 1960s.

We have also, Mr. Speaker, proposed in this legislation - and hopefully it will get passed in due course - some increased authority, I guess you would say, for government, in that we can now, similar to other resource industries in the Province.... If you take the forestry industry, for example, here in the Province, forestry companies - not to nail it down to just pulp and paper or sawmills or whatever - must provide government with year-to-year plans as to what their intentions are as it relates to their operations. Then, at the end of the time period that the plan was provided for, Company X, for example, has to sort of reconcile their actions against that plan. Mr. Dunne proposed that we should do the same thing in the fishing industry. Now, we have accepted that recommendation and the new Act reflects that. Going forward now, fish companies will have to provide government with their yearly plan in advance of their licenses being issued. In that yearly plan, some examples of what they would have to do would be to indicate roughly the volumes of product that they intend to process, where it is going to come from, where they intend to market that, the type of workforce, the number of people they would have employed, the duration of employment that we could anticipate, and the type of pack out that they would propose to be doing.

We think there is a real value in that for a number of reasons. Number one, it provides a greater sense of accountability. It forces the processing sector to identify to government, in exchange for the privilege, some would suggest, of a processing license - they would have to state their intentions for the coming year. Purely from government's perspective, it allows us to look at what the workforce is going to look like in the seafood industry, in the processing sector in particular, for the coming year. It would allow us to, then, partway through the season, identify where we are going to have problems as it relates to work content, employment levels, and what have you, and allow us to do the appropriate planning to adjust to that. Mr. Speaker, we think it is good from that perspective.

Also, with a reconciliation of that plan at the end of the season we will be able to see where companies have lived up to their commitments and where they haven't. Right now it is very open-ended as to what companies have to do and don't have to do. They don't have to provide to government their intentions for processing on a yearly basis. There is value in that. We see value in it in the forestry sector, for example, and we think there is value in it for the fishing sector.

As well, Mr. Speaker, we have given ourselves or we have proposed to give ourselves, I should say, increased authority as it relates to setting minimum processing requirements. As some people will recall, I know the former minister will recall, there has been in previous years some outcry from crab plant workers, in particular, about the labour content, the work content, associated with processing crab now verus years gone by when there was a higher level of meat production verus section production. While we did impose, so to speak, a conditional licence this year in crab processing that required processors to process 10 per cent of their output beyond the industrial pack stage - is what we refer to it as - and there has been some substantial improvement compared to the previous year. We did not achieve the 10 per cent but we went a long ways toward that, essentially doubling the post industrial pack production this year compared to 2003 and 2002.

Mr. Speaker, there was not in the act before a specific reference to processing requirements - minimum processing requirements, I should say. Now, if this legislation passes there will be and that will give us greater authority as it relates to compelling companies to do a minimum amount of processing on various fish species. We could do it under a conditional licence previously because government and the minister can set conditions and licences. I do not know about at will, but there is great latitude available to us. But, right now we will have that authority vested in the act, if is passes.

Mr. Speaker, I think those are the high points, and of course the purpose of second reading is to sort of hit the high points of the bill and to deal with the bill in general. As I said, this act has been in existence for in excess of forty years without any substantial updating done to it. I know that previous ministers recognized the need for this action to be taken. Whether they agree with the course that we have taken or not, I guess we will find out over the coming hours.

Mr. Speaker, we think that by giving ourselves greater authority as it relates to setting processing requirements, setting production requirements, that we have strengthened the authority of government in the regulation of the fishing industry. We think that that will serve the people of the fishing industry better going forward. We also think that by laying it out clearly and concisely in this manner, we will also do some service to the industry in that they will know what the rules are up-front. The act has been updated now to reflect 2004 as opposed to the 1960s.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I think I will conclude my opening remarks. I am sure that once we get into committee there will be an opportunity for questions and answers back and forth across the floor. I think that this is very much consistent with the views of the industry, with the views of processing workers and with what they articulated to Commissioner Eric Dunne when he travelled around the Province back in the fall of 2003. He met in fifty communities with a couple of hundred people, I guess, it was that showed up to those meetings. There has been a fairly extensive consultation that has taken place in the lead-up to the review of this act.

What we have in front of us, Mr. Speaker, as I said, does two things. It does a significant amount of housekeeping as related to the act that was brought in back in the 1960s and it also provides government with greater authority as it relates to the enforceability of quality standards, the enforceability of production standards, minimum processing requirements. It gives us the flexibility to be able to impose administrative penalties, on the one hand, for minor bookkeeping infractions, so to speak. It gives us the authority to ticket when there has been an infraction as it relates to quality, for example, on the head of the wharf or in the holding room of a plant and it still preserves our ability to lay a charge and take anybody to court for a serious infraction.

As well, I should say, in closing, as it relates to court, there has been also proposed substantial changes in the way that we handle the court process as it relates to fines that should be imposed for first, second and third offences. Mr. Speaker, we think that is also valid, considering that many of those fines were - the minimum fines were very low compared to the value of the industry that we see today.

Mr. Speaker, on that note I am going to conclude my remarks. I will be happy to take any comments and questions on this at a later stage in committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further debate?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to take an opportunity, just to take a few minutes to speak at second reading again, reading in principle with respect to Bill 57, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act. We will be raising a few specific concerns, Mr. Speaker, when we get to the committee stage of this bill where we do a more detailed examination of the clauses, but a couple of general comments I would like to make in principle with respect to this bill.

Today, again, in listening very closely and intently to the minister as he introduced the bill, he repeatedly and regularly used the name of Mr. Dunne. I only mention that because Mr. Dunne's name has been used a lot in this Legislature in the last little while. What we found out a couple of nights ago, Mr. Speaker, around about midnight was that Mr. Dunne's name was used in the last act that we passed, that was sponsored by this Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, inappropriately. In fact, almost to the point that it could be argued that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for Newfoundland and Labrador probably owes a written and public apology to Mr. Eric Dunne with respect to misusing his name to try to support initiatives in this House that had no connection and no relation, whatsoever, to what Mr. Dunne recommended, even to the point of being confirmed that members from rural fishing-based districts, like Bonavista North, are quoted in local newspapers in their area being asked about the fish licensing board: What do you think of this board? Is this a good thing? They say: Yes, it is a good thing because it is just like Mr. Dunne recommended. Only to have it disclosed and admitted and acknowledged in this House that it was not at all like Mr. Dunne recommended, not even similar, not even like a distant relative, not even like a third or fourth cousin, no relation.

I believe, Mr. Speaker - now, I heard Mr. Dunne's name, who has a very reputable name in the fishery, which is why he was asked to do the report, and why the government, by the way, said in principle that they accepted the report. Well, we certainly found out that one of the recommendations about an independent arm's-length licensing board, they sure did not accept and improve because they made up their own recommendation of setting up an advisory board that still leaves the power of licensing strictly and solely and totally in the hands of the minister.

So, I just make that comment, Mr. Speaker, and I will not belabour it, just to say that when Mr. Dunne's name has been used and is being used in the context of this Fish Inspection Act - which is a different issue than issuing the licence. This is about the Fish Inspection Act which gives the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture and its employees, on behalf of the government, the right to hold processors accountable for the business they are conducting. They have already gotten their licences, so it is not a licensing issue. They are already licensed to operate. They are already running fish plants. The good news, Mr. Speaker, is this, that they are running fish plants located in communities like Harbour Breton, or at least they used to. They are running fish plants based on land in communities like Fortune, or at least they used to. They are running fish plants in communities like Bonavista, or as least they used to. These are the powers of the government vested in them to inspect and hold these particular processors accountable for their actions when they have been given the right to access and make profit from a public resource, which is fish, Mr. Speaker.

In principle, again I would suggest that some of the changes that are here probably are in line with the changes that Mr. Dunne recommended. I hope they are, unlike the last time. I hope this time they are in line. We are finishing our checking on that, and we will probably confirm for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, when we discuss it in more detail in Committee, whether they are or they are not, because the last time, with respect to licensing, the government pretended that they were in line with the report when, as I said before, they were not even distantly related.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing is this: Some of these changes to the Fish Inspection Act - there will not be a lot of work, unfortunately, left to do, because we had the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, earlier today in Question Period, stand up and say: I have always believed - as a matter of fact, he said, I believed even before I got into politics - that there are too many fish plants in Newfoundland and Labrador, too many of them.

So he believes there should be fewer, I would say; lesser, he said yesterday. I am not an English major, but I believe the notion of being a smaller number of plants - let me put it that way, so there will not be a dispute over whether it is fewer or lesser - a smaller number of plants in a smaller number of communities is something that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for Newfoundland and Labrador, the right-wing arch Conservative government headed by a businessman from St. John's, with a person who used to be involved in a fishing enterprise from rural Newfoundland, standing up now, all of a sudden, saying: I have always believed, even before I got into politics, that there are too many fish plants out there.

No wonder he let Harbour Breton close and didn't raise a finger to try to stop it. No wonder he let Fortune close.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: I tell the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, there were no FPI plants that closed in a government that I led. That is what the record will show, no FPI plants that closed in a government that I led, and I can tell you what we have today.

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: I can tell you what we have now, as the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture bawls from his seat - a man who, earlier today, wanted us all gagged, by the way. The House of Assembly, the people's House, where you are elected to speak out in a free democratic society, the same minister that bawled out on the record today - not from his seat, but twice with the microphone on, as a recognized speaker, a minister of a Crown - Mr. Speaker, would you gag those people?

That is how much respect he has for this House, and now that he is not the recognized speaker he is over trying to interject. He can get up again; he knows that. He is going to get up and close this debate at second reading. He is going to get to speak a dozen times, twenty times, fifty times, at the Committee stage. He doesn't need to bawl out to me, because I am saying what I feel and believe. He was quite free today to say: I believe, as a person, and I have always believed, even before I got into politics, that there are too many fish plants in Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is what he said. Meanwhile, he campaigned for a group who are now the government that had a Blue Book that said: We have a plan for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We will protect the rural communities of Newfoundland and Labrador. We know how to do it better than the governments there today. We will not see people leaving the rural communities. We will stop out-migration. We know how to do it. We already have a plan for it. Just elect us, and let us get started.

Mr. Speaker, we elected them and they got started alright, and what do we have today? A year later, not a sign of a plan for rural development. Not a sign, not a trace, not a speck of it anywhere on the horizon, nothing in sight. They had a meeting in August month, out in Port Blandford, and they invited some people, a select group, and they said: Could you help us develop a plan for rural Newfoundland and Labrador - a year after they said they had a plan - could you help us develop a plan? Then they said that the plan would then be done some time this fall.

Well, I would suggest to you that there is no sign of the plan today. Now they are saying: Oh, we might have to do some more consultation, and we might be able to come up with a plan maybe some time in the New Year.

I tell you, here is how desperate they are to try to link something to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Yesterday, they had the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development - something like that - and the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, all three of them, high-powered press conference on regional economic development, going to save rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Guess what most of the money was for? To attract foreign students from other countries to Memorial University. That was it, Mr. Speaker. That was the biggest single expenditure announced yesterday.

That is the rural plan, and that has been going on for a number of years, by the way, attracting Chinese students, Asian students, other foreign students, to come here, because they are willing to pay. They are willing to pay for not only post-secondary education, Mr. Speaker, but they are willing to pay for K to 12 education, and they are willing to pay good money. It is a good initiative, but yesterday the biggest investment announced by the Premier, the minister who is supposed to save rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, was to attract foreign students from other countries to study in St. John's and Corner Brook. Now, I tell you, that is going to grow the economy in Englee, in the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture's own district, where the fish plant did not open this year. It opened before. It opened when we were the government. It did not open this year, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: It did not open this year, and guess what?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members on both sides to be attentive, and we ask members to be co-operative in a parliamentary setting.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition, who was addressing the House.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a bit strange - I guess it is a bit of a bad day for them - why they would be so sensitive to a few general comments I am making in principle about the Fish Inspection Act.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that, as we indicated here, the Fish Inspection Act -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: The Member for Gander - again, I like it when they speak because it is very enlightening. He says, the act is about the Fish Inspection Act, and the Leader of the Opposition is talking about rural Newfoundland. He is trying to suggest that I am off topic. Well, where do you think they inspect the fish? In St. John's? There aren't any fish plants in St. John's, I will have you know. There aren't any fish plants right in the City of Corner Brook. There aren't any fish plants in Gander. They don't inspect fish in the middle of Gander. Maybe the member might know that.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador Affairs.

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

The Leader of the Opposition might know, he might, but if he knew about the fishing industry he would know that actually St. John's is one of the largest ports in the Province for offloading fish.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, a huge amount of fish actually get inspected at dockside here. Just a point of clarification. If I took any of his time away, he can certainly have it afterwards.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The Chair recognizes, again, the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interjection of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. If he was listening, which obviously he wasn't, my point was, and I said it clearly, that I understand how busy a port the City of St. John's is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: I can tell you, Mr. Speaker - and if he wants to stand again, I will put it to him now to set the record straight. Is there a fish plant, which is what I said - there is no fish plant, I said, in St. John's - is there a fish plant in the City of St. John's? I ask him to answer the question. No answer, Mr. Speaker, because he knows the answer is, there is no fish plant in the City of St. John's. I was making the point, there is no fish plant in Gander. I was making the point that the Member for Gander said: Well, how can you stray from a topic of fish inspection and talk about rural Newfoundland and Labrador? Where do you think the fish plants are, if they are not in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker?

Let me continue. The plan to save them - and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is sponsoring this bill on fish inspections. Unfortunately, the problem is this. There are going to be a lot less locations to inspect the fish. It is inspected when it is landed, so at the ports it will be inspected. There is inspection done in the boats as it is landed. The problem is this, we have a Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture today who, when he got a bit frustrated in Question Period, began to pontificate about his true beliefs. His true belief, he said, always, ever since before he got elected, was that he believes there are too many fish plants in Newfoundland and Labrador. He is nodding his head now, saying: Yes, I said it. Yes, I agree. I want to tell the people the truth. That is what I believe in.

You have the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for the Province now on an agenda that he will tell us the truth because he wants to tell the truth. He will tell us the truth sometime about how many plants he actually plans to shutdown, and there will be no need of fish inspection acts in those plants because they won't exist. There will not be much fish inspection, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, next year this time in Harbour Breton. I can pretty well assure them of that. I can guarantee them there will be very little, if any, fish inspection going on in Fortune next year this time, Mr. Speaker. He knows that, and he is nodding his head again because he knows it to be true.

You get to the whole point, Mr. Speaker, but it is too bad we did not have a Fish Inspection Act of this nature when there were lots of plants. What he argues is this, Mr. Speaker. He argues: Where were the Liberals when all of those plants were shutting down in the mid-1990s. Well, the Liberals were the government, Mr. Speaker, and guess what was happening in the mid-1990s, from 1992 on? There was a moratorium on the fishery.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Yes, and I do know it is still in place, Mr. Speaker, but the year before that the quotas were several hundred thousands tons of fish. The year after, they were practically zero, and the people in the communities knew that their plants were not going to operate because they had no fish.

Now, the quotas have not reduced. The Minister of Fisheries is saying I am right. The quotas have not reduced since then. He says I am right. So, why are they closing now? Not because the quotas went from several hundred thousand down to a few thousand. They are closing because the companies want to make more money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: The minister and the Premier want the companies to make more money, because it is the business approach above all else, Mr. Speaker. Do they care if the people of Harbour Breton ever work in the fishery again? No, they do not. Do they really care if the people of Fortune ever work in the fishery and the plant again? No, they do not, because they believe there are too many plants anyway.

I say to the Member for Humber Valley, if you believe in your heart and soul, as the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture does, that there are too many plants, you have to honestly look somebody in the eye, in some community, and say: There is not future for you.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say I believe all of you should work with what you have always done, and also say you have too many fish plants. You might be able to twist that around and have it both ways and it might make sense. It does not make sense to the ordinary person in Newfoundland and Labrador. It cannot make sense to anybody who steps out of bed on any side of it in the morning. You would have to be dead for that to make sense to you. It makes no sense whatsoever.

We have had another true admission and confession, a very startling one, in this Legislature today, from the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture who says there are too many plants. By the way, all of you agree with it. All of you agree with it because you are in the caucus. You are going to stand up and vote for whatever he brings forward, as the Minister of Fisheries, so that means you agree with it. Now, go out in your own district, I say to the Member for Humber Valley, and tell them which communities that have fish plants today that you think do not belong there next year, and probably should not have been there last year. That is the challenge for you.

The Member for St. John's North does not have to worry about that because he knows the fish plant that was down here on the south side closed over ten years ago, but there is a whole lot more going to close if you listen to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Now, back to the Fish Inspection Act, back directly to the Fish Inspection Act, Mr. Speaker. I made the point about Mr. Dunne's recommendations. I am willing to believe, this time, that they are not misusing Mr. Dunne's name like they did the last time, because that was an affront to Mr. Dunne. He is owed an apology, I believe, with respect to the licensing board, where he recommended an independent board like the Liquor Commission and they brought in a piece of legislation which was an advisory board and pretended they were doing what Mr. Dunne said. I am hoping there is no pretense in this, Mr. Speaker. I am hoping it is not here.

Just let me give one example, and we will do these, Mr. Speaker, in more detail in Committee. One example, while I am speaking to this bill in principle, about the tie-in to the government, I heard several ministers stand up today and present annual reports. One of them was for Innovation and Trade. Another one was for Government Services. I think there were two or three tabled today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Women's Policy Office.

MR. GRIMES: Women's Policy Office, two or three reports, and guess what the script is? They are a very well-scripted group. The script was, in the spirit of - and here it is, on the front of another bill, by the way, Bill 39, not passed yet, not even debated in second reading yet, but the minister stood up today presenting reports and said: In the spirit of transparency and accountability - because there is an act before this Legislature called An Act To Enhance The Transparency And Accountability Of The Government And Government Entities To The People Of The Province. Today, I think we had three ministers stand up and present annual reports and said: In the spirit of accountability and transparency, I present this report.

It ties directly to this act, because guess what they are asking the fish processors to do? They are asking the fish processors - if they listened to their minister, and I am sure they did listen to him as intently as I did - he said one of the changes that they are bringing in, he compared it to forestry. He said, for the first time in history, the fish processors are going to be asked, by law, to present an annual plan as to what their processing plan is for the year. So, the law is changing. They do not have to present that to the government today, by the way, because the law does not require it. So, that is being touted as a good new initiative. The companies like FPI, by the way, like Quinlan's, like Daley's, like a whole bunch, all of them, big or small, are going to have to present an annual plan of how they are going to proceed with their processing operations for the next year.

I would say to them, if they are serious about enhancing the transparency and accountability of the government, they would also suggest that the plan not only be given to the minister and tucked away in an office, but it also be published in the area where they operate; so that down on the Burin Peninsula, whatever plan FPI gives with respect to Marystown and Fortune and Burin, that they would publish it in The Southern Gazette so that everybody in the area would know what plan they gave the government, what they are planning to do this year.

Now, I tell you what, that is openness and transparency and accountability. Will we see it? I don't know. I would hope we would. I am going to have a few comments, too, Mr. Speaker, when we get to second reading, on transparency and accountability, because I am a firm believer in it. I always was, still am, but I am not a firm believer like the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is, that we should have fewer fish plants just because they do not make as much money as they want in any one year and they are not making as big a profit; because the minister admitted their quotas, by the way, have not gone down. Their quotas have not gone down. FPI has not closed Harbour Breton because their quota was reduced unilaterally by the Government of Canada.

They have not closed, not quite closed yet. My description of it is they have not yet talked the people of Fortune into choosing which way they are going to die. I do not think I am being to harsh in describing it that way. Some people say a slow death or a fast death. It is not even that. It is two different versions of a slowish kind of death. They are going to drag it out a little bit.

If you listen to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, he would argue that they did the right thing down in Harbour Breton. He just went and told them. You shouldn't mislead them, you shouldn't lead them on, he said today. You shouldn't prop them up with make-work projects. You shouldn't say, try to get a few weeks working in your community where you want to live, where you want to raise your children, your grandchildren. That is all wrong, he said. You should just let them die. Give them all a ticket to Alberta. Get them on a plane as fast as you can. Get them on the ferry.

AN HON. MEMBER: One way.

MR. GRIMES: A one-way ticket. I bet you the government would probably bring in a program saying you can have a free airline ticket out to Alberta or we will give you free transport on Marine Atlantic when you are leaving to look for your job in Alberta or Southern Ontario. Now, if you come back to visit, I bet they will make you pay for that. They might give you a free one to leave, and that will be considered a good contribution, the right thing to do, because if you listen to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, that is the future that he described today.

So, Mr. Speaker, if they link the requirement for an annual plan to transparency and accountability - I will go a step further, and the people on the Burin Peninsula will have it in The Gazette, but let me give you last year's experience. Fishery Products International - and I feel quite free, by the way, about speaking about them openly in the Legislature because they were created by this Legislature. I do not feel quite as free speaking about Daleys or Quinlans because there is no piece of legislation in here that talks about them. There was no piece of legislation that created the other fish companies in Newfoundland and Labrador. There are no obligations on them by a special act. There are obligations under acts like this one, the Fish Inspection Act. There are obligations on them under acts like the Licencing Act, but there are no special obligations like there is for FPI.

Last year FPI told the people of Harbour Breton what their annual plan was; the plan that is now going to be required by law. They told the people of Harbour Breton what the plan was. It said: We will tell you - because they usually bring them in around this time of the year, the people from Fortune were in yesterday. It is around this time of the year that FPI - and I do not hesitate to speak about FPI, they are a creature of this Legislature. Mr. Derrick Rowe, the CEO says: I understand and acknowledge publicly that I have two masters. I have a board of directors that I have to answer to, who wants me to maximize profit for the shareholders. Never mind the workers, never mind who owns the fish, just get as much money for us as you can. I am investing my money in your company and I am hoping to get more back than I put in, and I want you to make me some money. I do not care how you do it. Usually they do it by having the fewest possible people work and touch a fish. Don't let people touch it. Don't let the people of the Province touch a fish.

Their ideal circumstance is the $40 million they put into the factory-freezer trawlers offshore. Don't even bring it on land, sir. Catch it out there; fillet it out there; process it out there; freeze it out there and drop it off wherever you want to sell it. Now whoever is on the boat gets a bit of work, but who works in Marystown under that scenario? Nobody. Who works in Fortune? Nobody. Who works in Harbour Breton? Nobody. Now, is Derrick Rowe doing a good job for one of his masters when he does that? Absolutely! And they carry him around on their shoulders and they say: Good for you, Mr. Rowe. You made us some money. You made us more money this year than you made for us last year. We are proud of you, Mr. Rowe.

Well, it happens that Mr. Rowe says: I have another master. He says: My second master is the government. Now, they might not want to believe that. They are trying to run away from that. They do not want to acknowledge that. They want to wash their hands of that. They want to deny it. Even a federal MP, like Mr. Matthews, said: They are sitting on their hands allowing the willful, total destruction of the FPI Act. That is not me, that is a federal Member of Parliament saying that.

So here is Mr. Rowe out there, who is the CEO of the company, saying - in the local papers by the way, The Sunday Independent, The Telegram, The Newfoundland Herald, and anybody else who will write what he says. He said: I understand that I have two masters, and one of them is the government. Usually, from the government the person who then acts as the master is either the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture or the Premier, or both.

They were asked in Question Period today: What about it? They said, well they met with Mr. Rowe ten days ago about Fortune. Ten days ago, Mr. Rowe, the Premier, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and the President of the Fisheries' Union, Mr. McCurdy, and when asked: What did you discuss? We discussed FPI's future plans for Fortune. When asked about it yesterday, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture said - he did not say what he said, he did not say what the Premier said as one of the masters - what the fisheries president said. He said Mr. McCurdy didn't say anything.

Remember now, remember what our Premier has said about the Atlantic Accord. He said: I wrote to Mr. Martin, as the Prime Minister, and laid out our plan. He did not write back. He did not say anything. He did not object, so that meant he agreed. Then he said: I wrote him again and he did not argue with anything I said. He did not say anything. He did not object to anything, that means he agrees.

Today we asked the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture: What did he say in that meeting? As one of the masters, because he is not in there as a subservient, he is not in a begging position. He is in a control position acknowledged by Mr. Rowe, himself. What did he say? Nothing. He said nothing about Fortune. So did he just sit there and nod, and say: Oh, yes, put out two options. Two options were described for Fortune: die slow or die slower. He said: The president of the fisheries union did not say anything. So, he must have agreed that that is okay, you just die one way or the other. The minister did not challenge it, so he must agree. He must agree that it is okay for Fortune to die, it is just a matter of which way. Today he stood in the House and said: It is not up to me. They have to pick which way to die. That is what he answered in this House today - a stunning answer. Nothing I can do about it. He is saying there is nothing I can do about it and Mr. Rowe is out in the public saying: I understand that the government is one of my two masters. It is astonishing, Mr. Speaker, absolutely mind-boggling to see what is happening.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, if they link it to openness and transparency they would have put the plan in the papers as well, but the plan in Harbour Breton, the annual plan that they are now going to be required to put in by law, said you will operate for twenty-two weeks. You will operate for twenty-two weeks in 2004. They did operate for fourteen weeks in the spring. They shut down temporarily in April, which has been the normal course of operation, as I understand it, in Harbour Breton for the last few years. Then they expected they would come back for the remaining eight weeks or so this fall, September, October and so on, because the company had told them you are going to operate for twenty-two weeks. In the plan that they will now be required by law to publish - which then should also, in my view, be in the local paper; the Coaster, I believe it is, on the Connaigre Peninsula. It should be published in that paper. But, would it matter if it was published or not? Because the company halfway through the year said: We changed our mind. When we get to that in committee stage we will say: okay, they will publish the plan. They are going to publish the plan - not only FPI now, but all of them are going to be required to publish a plan - but we will check it further and see what happens if they change the plan partway through the year, because they had a plan in Harbour Breton and before the year was over: the plant is closed. They had a plan in Fortune. Before the year's end, they are being asked to choose which way to die.

The minister now, scary thought - the minister who, a week ago, said: It is not up to me. This is how it is changing. This is how the sands are shifting. It is not a good comparison for a fish story but this is how the water is changing, I guess, the ripple on the water is changing. A week ago he said: It is not up to me to talk about the plans of FPI in the Legislature. FPI should talk about that. I do not work for FPI. Well, he has us fooled. He looks to me like a fella that I have seen, lots of workers at FPI who used to be proud to wear their FPI caps, FPI on the front. I have seen lots of them wear it. They used to wear them with pride. He should have one on. He should have a full suit on. A little badge here, a little thing saying FPI. I am not allowed to mention people's names but it would be TT, FPI, TT working for FPI. Probably a communication job, I would expect, because that is all he has been doing, communicating their messages. But, in any event, Mr. Speaker, in the those plans we will check and see if there is some way to help these people because he had an opportunity to do something about it but chose to sit on his hands and do nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I won't belabour these points here other than to say, there are some terrible things happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that are linked directly to the Fish Inspection Act, because fish inspection happens when the fish is landed and while it is being processed. The minister is saying, there will be less plants to process it in, and I believe that is the right thing for Newfoundland and Labrador, which means they all believe that. All of the Conservative Caucus believe that. That is now the government position.

When I mentioned today, what about Englee in his own district, what about Black Duck Cove that only had a new operator go in there a few years ago - very close, by the way, and adjacent to places like Port au Choix and Anchor Point. Does he believe that there are too many plants too close to each other there? They are processing similar products, by the way. He said: It is going to have to be rationalized. Last week he said: I don't feel comfortable talking about FPI. Guess what he did outside the Legislature yesterday? Talked about Bonavista, which is an FPI operation. Not FPI, it wasn't FPI talking about Bonavista, it wasn't Derrick Rowe, it wasn't Mr. Carrigan talking about Bonavista yesterday. Guess who was talking about an uncertain future for Bonavista yesterday? The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for Newfoundland and Labrador, who, along with the Premier, believes there are too many fish plants in this Province.

In the same interview, not even on different days in a different interview, in the same interview on the same day, in the same five or six minutes before the tv camera, he was talking about too many plants; can't be sustained; we have to have fewer plants in the future. He said: Bonavista, by the way, is not a very good plant. Poor infrastructure, he says. Now, there is a good link. What are the people of Bonavista supposed to think? People opposite today, when I mentioned a couple of communities, started to say, but then they stopped: fearmongering. Well, I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, if there is any fearmongering about Bonavista, it is being done full bore by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Member for Bonavista South is probably shaking in his boots, because the Member for Bonavista South, by the way, has also heard the minister who he supports in that Cabinet, who has now articulated a government policy saying: We have too many plants here. Guess which one he named as an example? Bonavista. How do you think the Member for Bonavista South and his constituents felt about that? Guess what? It is probably the first time he heard the minister say that officially on behalf of the government, right here in the Legislature, recorded in Hansard. I will bet a lot of money, too, Mr. Speaker, that he will try to find some way - the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture - to wiggle away from that, to back off from that, because I am sure the Member for Bonavista South is going to talk to him. He should probably be talking to him, because how do you think the people in Englee felt? I bet you the Member for St. Barbe is going to start talking to him, because how does he think the people in Black Duck Cove felt today when they heard the minister say there are too many plants, boys. How does he think the people in Anchor Point felt today when they heard him get on? He was being passionate about it. He wasn't giving a casual answer. He said, I have always believed it. I believed it even before I got into politics. There are too many plants out there.

I don't know about Port aux Choix, I don't know about Anchor Point and Black Duck Cove, but they are all pretty close together and the member knows that. The Member for St. Barbe knows that. He knows they are all shrimp plants, and he knows that if the companies like FPI get their way, they would put all of the shrimp in one plant, just like FPI is going to put all of the groundfish in Marystown. Then, when they no longer have any use for Marystown, that is gone and it will all be done at sea. That is the plan for FPI.

Here is the difference, Mr. Speaker, and I will finish here. FPI is a company that the CEO acknowledges has the government as one of its two masters. He said it in the public media: I recognize that the government is one of my masters. You won't hear Mr. Quinlan say that, you won't hear Mr. Daley say that, because it is not true. They have to live by the general laws of the land. There is no special act for them, and they would never say that the government is one of my masters - but Derrick Rowe said it openly and freely.

In the FPI plants, which are now under siege, where the government is one of the two acknowledged masters, what are they doing about it? Nothing! What are they going to do about it in the plants that are not owned by FPI, that are not under any special act of this Legislature? If they are doing nothing with the ones that they own by being the boss, well, I guess the rest of them can rest assured they are not going to lift a finger to help Englee, they are not going to lift a finger in Black Duck Cove, they are not going to lift a finger in La Scie, and they are not going to lift a finger in Triton. Triton is an FPI operation, I think, isn't it? It is still an FPI one. Sure, they are not going to do anything there anyway; that is FPI. That is one that they are one of the masters of, and they are not going to.... If they want to change operations in Triton, they know they can do it now anyway; they can do what they like.

Mr. Speaker, I will stop there for now. I do appreciate having had the opportunity, and I am sure now that the Member for Gander knows why it is appropriate, when you are debating a bill in principle about fish inspections, to talk about rural development and the rural survival of communities in Newfoundland and Labrador generally, because this whole place is here because of fish. That is why Newfoundland and Labrador was founded in the very first instance, 500-and-something years ago, on the eastern edge of the North American Continental, because of fish. It is still the fishery that, by and large, sustains the greatest part of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and you have a government acknowledging today that they think there are too many fish plants and that there should be rationalization, and that they are going to let it happen even in a circumstance where they have some control over the issue.

Mr. Speaker, there are other issues to talk about in the act, and we will talk about them in more detail when we get into the Committee stage. I do believe I made the point adequately, as well, that I would hope - I have not looked through it thoroughly - that where Mr. Dunne is being referenced in this act, that his name is not being used inappropriately as it was in the last act that was passed in this Legislature, suggesting that it had something to do with Mr. Dunne.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this particular bill, Bill 57, at second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to speak to Bill 57, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act.

It starts off by saying: This bill would amend the Fish Inspection Act to implement recommendations of the Fish Processing Review Commission, the "Dunne Report."

What he is basically saying is, he is amending the Fish Inspection Act to bring it in line with what Mr. Dunne suggested in his report.

If, Mr. Speaker, I knew for a fact that was all he was going to do - bring it in line with what Mr. Dunne recommended in his report - I would feel a lot better. I know Mr. Dunne personally, and I know that he has a fair degree of knowledge of the fishing industry, and I know that he is an honest and honorable man, but I stood here the other night until close to 1 o'clock talking on another recommendation that Mr. Dunne made, or it was said that Mr. Dunne made.

The minister rose on a number of occasions, not only in this House but in the Province, and said that he was implementing an independent licensing board as recommended by Mr. Dunne, and indeed Mr. Dunne did recommend an independent licensing board, but that is not what the minister put before the House the other night. He put before the House the other night, an advisory board that did not resemble whatsoever what Mr. Dunne recommended in his report.

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is, for those opposite, they should look carefully at this piece of legislation, because simply because the minister says it is what Mr. Dunne is recommending, to use the words of the House Leader over there, the Government House Leader, to simply say that this is what Mr. Dunne is recommending does not necessarily mean that is so. Just because the minister says this is so, does not necessarily mean it is so. The prime example of that the other night was when he said: I am doing this because Mr. Dunne recommended it, and it was nothing close to what Mr. Dunne recommended.

Mr. Speaker, the second or the third line says that the bill pertains to various housekeeping amendments. If you talk about housekeeping amendments, for the most part, in government, it is just changing a few rules and regulations, but I suggest to those new members in the House of Assembly, like the Member for Burin-Placentia West, and like the Member for Humber Valley, and like the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde, whenever anybody mentions the Fish Inspection Act - and I say it to these people because they all represent districts that have a fishery; even my colleague from Humber Valley has a fish plant in her district, and a very good fish plant - whenever anybody mentions the Fish Inspection Act, even to do some housekeeping things, your ears should perk up, and the reason they should is because anything you do in the fishery in this Province has an impact and effect on the biggest industry that we have, the most important industry that we have in this Province. So, I suggest to those new members who have fisheries and have fish plants in their district, they should pay very careful attention even to the housekeeping items because you might go back to your district one of these days and be faced with questions that you do not know the answers to because you were not paying attention to it, because nothing, to me, is considered housekeeping in the fishery. Nothing.

Mr. Speaker, one of the recommendations - one that I will have a few words on here today, and also have some words on in the next reading of the bill. It says in the preamble here, explanatory notes. It says, "In clause 3 of the Bill, would repeal and substitute section 4 of the Act to create 2 types of regulations: those made by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council..." - which is the Cabinet - "... and those made by the minister. Previously, only regulations made by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council were contemplated under the Act."

In other words, Mr. Speaker, prior to today, when this bill came in all decisions pertaining to the Fish Inspection Act, which is the fishery in the Province, all the major decisions had to go to the Cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Now what they want to do is allow the minister to make certain decisions that will never have to go to Cabinet. So, in essence, this bill will give the minister far more authority than he ever had - whoever that minister might be. This bill, if it goes through, will give the current minister far more power and authority than I had just a couple of years ago when I was the minister. It will give the current minister, if this passes today, more power than he had yesterday. Now, that might not upset a lot people. Some people might say: Yes, the current minister was a fisherman and he should have all the authority. I do not happen to believe that, because we do have some views that are similar but we have some views that are totally unalike.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that even in a housekeeping bill that the members opposite might not be paying a lot of attention to, there is one very significant change, and that is we are giving the minister today more authority than he had yesterday. You might say: Well, what kind of authority? The Cabinet still issues licences. The Cabinet still will be required to issue processing licences, but if you read closely - and you know what the minister is contemplating doing in the fishing industry, as he said earlier this week in the media and in this House, and that is to reduce the number of fish plants in the Province. If you look very closely at the bill, it will be the minister and not the Cabinet who could decide which of these plants are the ones that are going to go.

Mr. Speaker, if you want to look at page ten of the bill, it says: the minister will prescribe criteria to determine which licences are inactive. It will be the minister, and not the Cabinet, who will determine if a plant is inactive. Guess what happens if your licence is considered to be inactive? Guess what the minister is going to do if your licence is considered to be inactive? He is going to cancel the licence. The plant is going to close. It will no longer be in operation. So, if a particular plant in your district did not have an operator last year, the minister can determine that it was inactive and that licence is gone. It is no good for someone to come this year or next year to look to operate that plant because the licence is gone.

It is also going to be the minister who is going to prescribe the minimum production requirements. In other words, it will be the minister who will say if you do not do this amount of product this year, you lose your licence. If you do not do this amount of product this year, you will lose your licence, or in a prescribed period of time. It doesn't matter that you were not able to access the fish. It does not matter that you could not procure the fish. It does not matter because the minister could look at you and say: You didn't do X number of pounds of fish last year so you are not operating this year.

So, I have a grave concern about this section of the bill because it gives too much power to one individual. If you were to listen to the Member for Gander the other night, and the Member for Terra Nova and the Member for Lewisporte, they all talked about the minister having too much power. That is the reason they wanted him to set up a licensing board because the minister had too much power. Now, they say, the other night, that the licensing board he created was going to take power from him - which is a bunch of malarkey, as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, because he still has the same authority today to issue a licence as he had yesterday before the bill was passed. But this will give him back the power that he pretended he gave away the other night. When his colleagues, who sit behind him, said it is a good idea to take the power away from the minister and put it in the hands of a licensing board, well, this bill is giving the minister now more power than he ever had before. Now he is going to be able to determine the fate of the fish plants in the Province.

Let me tell you, it slips out sometimes, and if you are a good listener you will have no problem standing and debating things because if you listen to a person long enough in a debate or an argument he will contradict himself, and this minister is apt to do it everyday. He said this week that his plan - not his plan, but we have too many fish processing facilities in the Province. Everybody knows that, he said. I knew it before I was elected. I knew it when I was a fisherman myself. I knew it when I was in the union, and something needs to be done about it.

Well, I happen to know that there is a review ongoing in his department and that the minister will soon announce which plants in the Province are gone. I happen to know that he has already established the minimum processing requirement for someone to hold a licence for crab, that is one ton. If a person or company did not process one ton of crab last year they are not going to have a crab licence next year. I do not have all the details on all the rest of them but you can rest assured -

MR. TAYLOR: You are wrong.

MR. REID: The minister says I am wrong, but if you talk to the processors who have been talking to him on a daily basis they will tell you what I just said. He is saying they are wrong so maybe, Mr. Speaker, the minister is not open and as forthcoming with them as he has been us.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that this minister now will go out around the Province and say: All right, this plant only produced a certain amount of fish last year. Oh, it does not meet my requirement - not the Cabinets, not the governments, my requirement - I am closing this plant, so you are out of the fishery. I will go to another one that is processing capelin. You never processed the required amount of capelin this year, no matter that you could not buy it, you are gone. He is going to cherry pick and set his guidelines such that he will be able to pick which plants will operate and which plants will not. I would be willing to bet right here in this House, Mr. Speaker, today, that I can name some of the plants that will lose their licences this year as a result of what the minister intends to do and because of the power he has in this piece of legislation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, those opposite, the Member for Gander laughed earlier this afternoon when our leader was up, the Member for Exploits was up talking about the fishery and rural Newfoundland. He laughed because Gander does not have a fish plant. Gander does not have a fish plant, but I ask the Member for Gander: Would Gander survive without the fishery? He might be over there thinking now that I am somehow after losing my mind because the fishery does not affect Gander. I am sure that is what he is thinking, the fishery does not affect Gander, but I can tell the Member for Gander that without the fishery Gander would not survive because all of the constituents in my district, sir, go to Gander. All of the constituents in my colleague's district, the Member for Bonavista North, go to Gander. I can tell him something else, the people who just lost their jobs in Harbour Breton went to Gander. They will not go as often now because they do not have the money to spend. I can tell him, the businesspeople in Gander will not be as flippant and make such flippant remarks about the fishery as the Member for Gander did today because they understand that it is going to affect their bottom line and it is also going to affect employment levels in Gander.

We talk about FPI. I was shocked today when the Minister of Fisheries, in response to a question asked by my colleague, the Member who represents Fortune, when he threw up his hands: What do you expect me to do about Fortune? What can I do about Fortune? Well, I say to the member opposite, he is the minister and if he doesn't know what to do about Fortune he should resign and let one of his colleagues, like the Member for Bonavista South, do it. I am sure that he wouldn't throw up his arms and say: What do you want me to do? He wouldn't do it. A man who a couple of years ago said he wrung more salt water out of his mitts than I ever saw. Well, that might be the case, but he admitted today that he didn't know what to do about the situation in Fortune. Last week he cut Harbour Breton loose, and yesterday, just outside of the House of Assembly, when questioned about Bonavista - this wasn't Derrick Rowe speaking to the media out in front yesterday, it was the Fisheries Minister. When asked about Bonavista, the minister says: Well, we all know that Bonavista is an old plant and they need a new plant down in Bonavista. That is something to say.

Derrick Rowe is not saying that, but what the minister was actually doing was indicating to Derrick Rowe, if the man up there has half a brain at all, that: Listen, Trevor Taylor just said we need a new plant in Bonavista.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Sorry! The Minister of Fisheries. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, very sorry. I won't do it again, if I can help it.

The Minister of Fisheries says we need a new plant in Bonavista or, he said, they can process that crab in Catalina. That is what he said outside the door.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries was faced, this week, when he walked into a meeting with FPI - they told him he had two options down in Fortune. Mr. Carrigan, the PR Director for FPI, even said in today's paper, that one of the options is to commit suicide. That is what he said: Drive your care off a cliff. The other is go to work in Marystown. FPI didn't say they have two options in Bonavista. Who said it? The Minister of Fisheries. Don't be surprised if you are sitting in Bonavista when the crab season starts, if Mr. Rowe and his entourage don't walk right into the town and say: Listen you have two options here. We can close your plant or we can move you up to Catalina.

The minister says to me today: Sure, everyone knows that. He just said it to me across the floor. Everybody knows that. What are you saying? You are sending a signal to the leaders of FPI that: Listen, boys, I have the options for you for Bonavista. You don't have to come to me and tell me what you are going to do to Bonavista. I will give you the two options for Bonavista. One of them is close it. The other is to move the employees to Catalina.

Who are you working for, I ask the minister? Who are you working for? Are you working for the people of Bonavista? Are you working for the people of Harbour Breton? Are you working for the people of Fortune? Because I remember well, I say to the Speaker, what the member said when he sat right here on this side of the House, and what his colleagues said: We would never - that is what he said - we would never allow layoffs in the FPI plants without the negotiated agreement with the union.

Well, I say to the minister today, what happened? Why are you sitting over there today and saying I cannot do it, when you so eloquently talked about it over here?

I will tell you something else, Mr. Speaker. The minister admitted today that the fish that is available to FPI is the same fish that was available to them two years ago when he made the statement. Two years ago he made the statement: I would not let them lay anyone off.

He admitted today that they have the same amount of fish that they had two years ago, or could have access to it, so what is the problem today? When asked that, just then, he said: Oh, the problem today is the price of the fish or the competition with China.

I talked to an individual with the press outside the door just recently here this afternoon. That individual told me they were in a company this afternoon where they saw FPI fish in a box. Guess what? Guess where it was stamped? Made where? FPI fish, the box, FPI marked on it, made in China, processed in China. Processed in China.

MR. TAYLOR: It's not Newfoundland fish, though, is it?

MR. REID: I don't care what fish it was! FPI was written on it. It could be done in Newfoundland; that is what I say to the minister. It wasn't Newfoundland fish. It could be done in Newfoundland! It could be done in Harbour Breton! It could be done in Fortune! But you, you let them take it away and process it in China, I say to the minister! That is what you did!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: Don't get to me! Don't! That is an insult, as far as I say. You are shirking your duties as the minister. You are walking away.

I will tell you the reason it is being done in China and it is not done in Harbour Breton. I will tell the minister, in case he doesn't know. I will tell the minister the next time he talks to Derrick Rowe, FPI showed a profit last year doing that fish in Newfoundland and Labrador, and they will show a profit again this year, only they will show a larger one. The reason it is being done in China and not in Harbour Breton and not in Fortune is because it is being done cheaper in China. The labour costs are less, but guess what? FPI will make more money by having it processed in China, and guess where that money is going to go? It is not going to subsidize the workers in Harbour Breton or subsidize the workers in Fortune or subsidize the workers in Bonavista. It is going into the pockets of the shareholders of FPI. I say to the minister, check and see who owns the shares in FPI. How many of them, I say to the minister, live in Harbour Breton?

MR. TAYLOR: Everybody in Harbour Breton had shares. Every employee of FPI (inaudible).

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the minister just said everybody in Harbour Breton had a share. I say to the minister, a share traded on the Toronto stock exchange yesterday for $7.75, so that is what they had. If the minister would even look and take this issue seriously, he would know who owns the shares of FPI.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I remind the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo that his time has expired.

MR. REID: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to clue up?

If he is talking about the shares, check out how many John Risley owns.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the member have leave?

MR. E. BYRNE: To clue up, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: I say to the minister, if he wants to pretend that the people of Harbour Breton own the shares, ask Mr. Rowe who owns the shares.

The reason FPI is not processing fish in those two plants is, they can do it cheaper in China and increase the profits for the shareholders while cutting loose and sending home the workers of Harbour Breton and Fortune. I say, shame on you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know the minister is anxious to speak and respond to some of the issues raised on this side of the House, but I would like him to address a few other points as well. We are looking at an act that amends the Fish Inspection Act, but it provides for a lot of issues and rules and regulations regarding processing in the Province, which, of course, is within the constitutional jurisdiction of this Province. The quotas are not. They cannot decide on quotas. There are a lot of things they cannot do, but they certainly can decide on processing issues.

In fact, one of the powers that the minister will have, if this act is passed, is the power to approve, or not, a processing plan by a processor. I would invite him to comment on his powers under clause 10 of the act, which would add the following section 10.1 (1) to the Fish Inspection Act, which says, "A processor shall submit a processing plan to the minister for his or her approval...".

It suggests that they have to have the information required, et cetera, et cetera. After a processing plan has been approved, a processor proposes to make a significant alteration or addition - he shall file any changes. The minister may accept it with or without changes and a processor shall process in substantial conformity with the processing plan approved under this section, and then they have to provide an annual report.

I think these two sections are new. I want to ask the minister how he proposes to carry out his obligations under section 10 of the act. Is he going to say, after the fact, well, I do not have any control over processing, or what they process, whether they process it here or whether they process it somewhere else? Or, is he going to say that is up to FPI what they do? They can process in Fortune, they can process in - or, in the case that was just raised by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, the former Minister of Fisheries, are the people of Bonavista going to be faced with the fact that FPI decides they are going to process the crab in Catalina. Is the minister going to say, well, that is up to the company; I do not decide where they process their fish. They can process it according to whatever their business plan is; because, in fact, the minister will have, under this act, the power to say to FPI, if they have a plant licence in Bonavista, that they have to follow the plan that they have filed, or say to them about Catalina, that they have to follow the plan that they have filed, because I am not going to approve an amendment.

He will have some control over that and he will be able to sit down in meetings like he talks about when he talked about the other day sitting down with Derrick Rowe, when Derrick Rowe said we have two choices; we are going to either close the plant or move the work somewhere else.

He can have some say, and he is going to have some say. I want the minister to tell us what he is proposing to do. Is he going to exercise any significant authority here, and what is he going to do if a processor decides that he does not want to carry out the plan that he has filed with the provincial government, with the minister?

We are in a situation now, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the people of Harbour Breton, where they have very few options. It is not a question of options being offered to them by FPI. They are now facing a situation where many of them are running out of EI. The ones who have not run out of EI between now and Christmas will run out of EI between now and the end of March. There is nothing that this government has on the table yet, by way of a plan, to deal with that short-term pain that people are suffering today and are going to suffer long before any plan is in place, long before anything is put together to look at other alternatives, and something has to be done now.

FPI is the processor who has to approve all of their plans and have their plans approved by this minister. I am assuming this government is going to pass this legislation. The minister is going to have this power and I want to know what the minister is going to do. Is he going to use his power to ensure that the people working in Fortune are not going to be treated in a cavalier manner by FPI? - which they seem to be willing to do, Mr. Speaker. Because what we have happening right now - this is the writing on the wall, Mr. Speaker. This is the writing on the wall. FPI has apparently, without saying so, changed its philosophy of operation. They have changed their business plan. They have changed their approach to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They are no longer the company that they were when they had - one of their missions and goals was the preservation of the communities where they had a workforce in Newfoundland and Labrador, so that they could keep those communities going, keep that workforce going, so that the fish stock when it returned, that the fish could be processed by those communities, in those plants, and keep them alive while that was going to happen.

That is what H and G Cod was all about, Mr. Speaker. It was not about making a gigantic profit for FPI. They never did it to make a gigantic profit. They did it for other corporate reasons that had to do with long-term shareholder value, as it was seen by the corporation, in accordance with their mandate under the legislation. That was the philosophy of FPI up until recently, Mr. Speaker. Now they have a different philosophy. Their philosophy: get rid of these plants, get rid of these assets. Keep the quotas. Find another way of making money on it. Keep the quotas.

They envisage the future, Mr. Speaker, when it is only the company and the fish and the profit. They will catch the fish and they will sell it, but they will not process it in Newfoundland and Labrador. They will keep the quota and they will return whatever profit they can to the shareholders but they will not have any commitment and they will not hold any commitment to the communities and people of Newfoundland and Labrador that they are designed, by statute, to support. There still is an obligation written into the FPI Act to maintain the traditional, harvesting processing patterns in this Province; written into the Act as part of their purposes, but they are ignoring that, Mr. Speaker.

I want the minister to tell this House why he seems to be throwing up his hands when he is going to have this power here to approve or disapprove processing plants and have some control over plants in this Province and, as minister responsible for the FPI Act, has control over whether or not they operate in accordance with the legislative mandate. If Derrick Rowe is prepared to acknowledge he has two masters, the shareholder and the minister, what is this master telling him? What is this master telling him and what is this master going to tell him when he is given the additional authority under section 10.1 of the Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act that is before us? Because these are very important questions, Mr. Speaker. These are very important questions.

We have seen what appears to be an abandonment by FPI of its mandate, of the purpose for which it was incorporated. FPI may be a private corporation but it is, what I have called in the past, a public purpose private sector corporation. It has a public purpose mandate, and that public purpose is now spelled out as a result of amendments made following the all-party committee in this House a couple of years ago. Those amendments were made in 2002. They were made for a reason, because we envisaged, all of us, the possibility that this is the kind of thing that was going to start happening if this company decided to go a particular way. We tried to make sure that the legislative mandate was there strong enough, as strong as we could make it. There were debates about that within our committee, and the Minister of Fisheries will remember those debates within our committee. But how far could we go? We went as far as we could, Mr. Speaker, in describing and determining what the legislated purpose of FPI was, and the minister is now being given certain powers in this act, general powers, that he can use. He can use them with respect to FPI as well as he can use with respect to anybody else.

There is an obligation. FPI has an obligation to these communities, and not just a moral obligation. They have a long-term, historical relationship. They have, in the past, acted in a manner, under the previous tenure, which respected that mandate that we talked about when we made changes to the legislation. We want to see this government, as the government in power with the obligation to carry out the act, and this act, to use those powers to ensure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, who work in FPI plants, are not walked over. They do not have the right to walk over them and show disrespect for the support they have given to this company over the many years.

Yes, it was privatized. The minister talked about it being privatized, just like Petro-Canada was privatized the other day he said - or the other week. No, Mr. Speaker, not just like Petro-Canada was privatized the other week. The government sold off all its share in Petro-Canada. Petro-Canada was privatized a long time ago. The government held some shares in it. They just sold them off. Petro-Canada does not have the public purposes for which it was formed thirty years ago. It does not have those public purposes anymore. It is just another oil company. Some people might have an affinity for it because it has a nice Canadian stylized flag attached to it. Some people might have an affinity for it because it used to be a national oil company owned by the people, but it is not anymore. It does not have, nor does it pretend to have, any public purpose other than to make money for its shareholders.

Mr. Speaker, FPI does have a public purpose. It is a public purpose private corporation for which its purposes are set out in the FPI legislation. It is up to the minister to ensure that the letter and the spirit of that act is carried out. He is being given additional powers, I say to hon. members. He is being given additional powers to this act to ensure that a processing plant that meets his approval comes his way. If he does not like it, he can ask for changes. I want to know: Is he prepared to use this act and these new powers to protect the people of Fortune, to protect the people of Bonavista, if necessary? Because that looks like it is next, Mr. Speaker.

If we are right about the shift in corporate philosophy in the board room and the executive suite of FPI, if we are right about the change in philosophy, if we are right about that, I think we do need to give this minister stronger powers, but we also need to stiffen his back and see if he is going to act up and protect the people that these powers are going to entitle him to protect. That is going to be the real challenge, Mr. Speaker, whether this minister is prepared to do that. He may have more salt water in his veins than me, too, but that is not the issue here. The issue here is whether this minister is going to act in this House, and in his capacity as Minister of Fisheries, to protect the people when he is being given power to do so, and when he has a responsibility to so do, under the FPI Act.

There have been changes in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador for the last fifteen years. Anybody who thinks that we can maintain the status quo forever is a fool, so changes have to take place from time to time. I do not think anybody disagrees with that, but those changes should not leave people who spent all their lives working in an industry, working in a fish plant, providing a profit base for a company, left out in the cold - some of whom are going to have to apply for social assistance before Christmas, Mr. Speaker. That is the situation we are in now. This is not a situation that just came upon us, that just came upon FPI two weeks ago or three weeks ago. They knew about that last spring. They know about that last May or June, and they waited and they waited and they waited until people were about to run out of EI before they told them of those plans. I guess they were hoping, Mr. Speaker, that they could get this special arrangement through so they could set up their income trust before the people of Harbour Breton had to find out what their plans were. I guess that is the reality.

I do want to know whether or not this government has made up its mind. This free vote stuff seems, to me, to be a way to avoid making a decision and taking responsibility. Why isn't this government prepared to say definitively that it will not support this income trust because it is going to support a philosophy that treats a Newfoundland and Labrador asset, FPI, as a stand-alone operation, that cannot be supported by the international activities of FPI, so that we cannot weather the kind of ups and down that have been affecting the fishery in this Province for centuries.

What we liked about FPI was the stability of a large corporation that could maintain a stable workforce in Harbour Breton and in Catalina and in Bonavista throughout the years when things were difficult because they had the wherewithal and the willingness as a corporation to go out into the marketplace and to make that corporation work so that we could have a stable base in Newfoundland.

We were very proud in Newfoundland and Labrador - we were very proud; I was very proud, certainly, as a Newfoundlander and Labradorian - to see FPI as one of the premier fishing companies in the world operating out of this Province, operating successfully, despite the fact that we had, some people would call it, resource challenges. That is a nice euphemism, Mr. Speaker. We had a moratorium. Our main species was shut down, practically, for ten years. It was not just a resource challenge, Mr. Speaker; it was a disaster. It was a tragedy of biblical proportions, as my friend Richard Cashin called it, a disaster of biblical proportions, the loss of that great resource in the Northern cod through the moratorium years. Yet, FPI maintained its position as one of the premier fishing companies in the world.

They maintained that position, and part of their philosophy and part of their goal and part of their vision was to support and maintain and work with the communities of Newfoundland and Labrador who were very much a part of its success and were part of its long-term future, but I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that the current leadership of FPI does not see the world that way. We have to use whatever tools we have, Mr. Speaker, for this public purpose private corporation to operate, to make this corporation operate to the extent that we can within that mandate and within that structure.

I want to hear what the minister has to say about this act, about the Fish Inspection Act, about how it might be used to help further those aims that I talked about, because I am willing to give him that power, Mr. Speaker. I am willing to give him that power under the Fish Inspection Act to control processing if he is prepared to use it for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I want him to commit to doing that. If he does, Mr. Speaker, I will support this legislation.

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a few words on the act as well, because it is pertinent at this time to what has happened over the last number of weeks, especially in the district that I represent. The largest community that I represent is in a crisis situation as a result of what FPI did.

Section 10 in the Act, as everybody has said, is new where, "A processor shall submit a processing plan to the minister for his or her approval..." I won't read it all down through. What I would like to see, Mr. Speaker, is a plan submitted by a company, like FPI, where they would submit their plan to the minister for his approval. Then, if during the year - and by the way, it could very well be a yearly report - they complete a yearly report and send to the minister, if they did not measure up to what their plan was, then, obviously, you could pull that particular processing licence from them in the community and be able to pass it someone else.

I would like to make a few comments, and I do not want to repeat the things that I said the first day. Obviously, it is a possibility that you will, that I will probably repeat some of the things that I have already said regarding the Harbour Breton situation. I would like to make one comparison, what FPI has done in 2004 versus what they did in 2002, and it is very, very, very interesting. I will tell you what they did in 2002. They had a communications plan. I do not know who the communications person was with the company, but what they did in 2002 is they announced that they were laying off people within their three operations, people in Marystown, people in Fortune, and people in Harbour Breton. All of the major plants were being affected.

What did we see? We saw a rallying cry from the communities, Mayor Synard from Marystown, Mayor Rogers from Harbour Breton at the time, and, I think, it might have been Mayor Noseworthy from Fortune or someone else, but the three mayors. They were all affected. They came together as a unit and they put political pressure on and said: this is not going to happen. In 2004 they changed their communications plan completely around. They hired a new person, and it is no coincidence, the way that they did it. The way they did it is this, they pitted community against community. That is what they have done. They picked off one community first and then another.

Let's go back and see what happened to Harbour Breton. They closed the Harbour Breton plant. People in Fortune did not say anything, because now they were in a position to get some of the quota that was in Harbour Breton, like the redfish. They didn't want to say anything. The people of Harbour Breton were pretty much fighting their own battle. The news came out, and, I mean, we have all seen the news releases and so on, the media, the Open Line shows, that say that is double talk, it is not straight forward. There is ambiguity within the things that they said.

Nobody in Fortune had any fear, their plant was not going to close. Guess what? The plant in Fortune, for all intents and purposes, is closed, because I heard Derrick Rowe say yesterday, I think it was in an interview, option one is to process in Fortune, but if you do not operate and make a profit in that particular plant, then that option is obsolete, it does not work. We are not going to operate unless we make a profit.

What happened last night? The union guy, I think it was Mr. Mullins from Fortune, in his commentary on Open Line to Linda Swain, said: I feel like I am the biggest liar in Fortune, because I was told that we were okay, that nothing was going to happen, that we would be secure. What did they find out? They are not secure. What is happening with that particular community now? The same situation as Harbour Breton.

What have they promised for Marystown? They might deliver, I am not saying that they won't. What they have done is, they have said to Marystown: Now, you can probably have the fish that was formerly belonging to Harbour Breton. You can have the fish that Fortune was going to process. You can have it in Marystown. We will put a new line into secondary processors in Burin and we will hire a couple of hundred of the people who are in Fortune, because you are within driving distance and you can work in Marystown. That is what they have done and it was done cleverly, purposefully, so that the communities would not be able to find a common cord to be able to go against each other. That is exactly what had happened. That really, in a sense, bothers me a lot, because I have said in the House, and I have tried to be as non-partisan as I probably should and can be, in the sense that I see it as a really, really serious situation for the people that I represent. It is for the people of Harbour Breton, or for the people of Gaultois, or whatever other community, in Ramea. It is people who are here in a situation they never dreamed would happen.

It was done purposefully by Derrick Rowe. I heard him yesterday, in a conversation with John Murphy from the CBC Fishermen's Broadcast. He was talking about Fortune and giving them the options. He said: It is all about people, John. He was right, it is all about people, but it is not about the people of Harbour Breton and it is not about people of Fortune or any other community that might be affected. It is about shareholders. It is shareholders.

I read an article, and I have asked for it and I will be able to recite some of the things from it in a few minutes. When Derrick Rowe and his group decided that they were going to take over FPI, they had these plans for the company, they had these plans for the community. One of the things that he said in that particular paper toward the end, when he was asked, was: Are there any chances that you would dissect the company, that somehow the processing and the marketing arms would be different, in the fact that they would be sold off. Oh, he said, you have nothing to fear about that. This company is about two parts, it is about processing and marketing, but they are integrated, they are intertwined, they are not separable.

What is happening now, two years after? To the government's credit, up to this particular point they have not allowed him to sell the marketing arm of the company, the arm of the company that makes a profit, that has subsidized Harbour Breton and Fortune over the years. There is no doubt about it - and the Leader of the NDP, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, said it very admirably only a few minutes ago - the whole philosophy of FPI has changed. Since the new Board of Directors came into being and took over the company it has changed focus. The bottom line for FPI now is shareholders, to be able to increase the profit for the people who run the company. The social conscience, where they have taken the money to help the people of Harbour Breton or the people of Fortune or any other plant they have had, is not there anymore. They don't care, the bottom line.

I am sure that Mr. Rowe has been given instructions by John Risley and the guys, who came here from NEOS, in their first proposal, when they said: Oh, we have the latitude, we have the room to do things, we can invest in the company. Invest, alright! They invest. Rather than investing in the plant in Harbour Breton, what did they do? They went out and brought two factory freezer trawlers, about $40 million. That is what they did. What they are doing with these trawlers at sea is having their catch frozen right abroad the boat, then taken into the mother ship, and gone into China to process. It is about money, and the people who are caught in between are the people in the rural parts of the Province.

I am really hopefully, that at the end of the day, as the Leader of the NDP said, the Minister of Fisheries will take it very seriously, and I know that he is. I am not, for one moment, saying that he is not. What we have here is a region of the Connaigre Peninsula which is disseminated. Three hundred and fifty direct jobs in a community like Harbour Breton is the equivalent of 7,000 or 8,000 in St. John's. There is nothing else for us. For them to recognize that we are not within driving distance of Marystown, we are not within driving distance of any other community, we are there all by ourselves out on the peninsula - the minister can recognize that, I am sure, just as he did in his own area up on the Northern Peninsula. We are rural, rural. There has to be something that has to be done to make that happen.

Mr. Speaker, I would also say - because the Premier has said, and the Minister of Fisheries as well, that if, at the end of the day, the committee that is in place brings a recommendation to government saying that the best thing for us, as a part of the proposal, which is one part of the proposal, is that we have a part of FPI's quota that has been traditionally done in Harbour Breton - in my heart of hearts, I want to believe that is going to happen, but I am not sure if it will happen. That is what really, in a sense, gives me trepidation and fear.

The only way that I think the people of Harbour Breton can ever get a share of FPI's quota is for this Legislature, through the FPI Act, to say to FPI: You are going to be required to leave a portion of your quotas here for the Town of Harbour Breton.

If we have to depend on the federal government and the Minister of International Trade - we have seen over the years where that is - we could very well end up at the end of the day, and God forbid that we should, without a fish plant or fish processing in the Town of Harbour Breton, because there is nothing else that really you can build the town on. There are some other things you can do, obviously, to augment, but really the mainstay, the focus, the cornerstone, has to be from the fishery.

The article that I was referring to was, From The Top Down - that is the article that I was referring to earlier - and it is, A Fish Out Of Water. When a person reads that particular article that is here, it really gets you to think. This was one of the comments that was made by John Risley back then. It tells you all, you see, and this is his quote: In my opinion, Mr. Young deliberately ignored the stated wishes of his shareholders.

Who are his shareholders? They are not the people of Harbour Breton. They are not the people of Fortune. These are the people who control the company. So, what is he saying here then? We have to change focus. We have to make sure that this company is viable, and by doing that we have to change focus. By changing focus, it means that is it no longer a social conscience or a social agenda for these people.

There is one thing that all of us have to realize, and I think the minister already recognized that today, and that is, in 1992 when there was a moratorium and a lot of the plants closed, there was a lot less fish than there was a year or two before that; but today, in 2004, there is no less fish for FPI than there was in 2002 - no less. Probably within a year of the moratorium coming off some of the America plaice there might be a lot more fish for the company that they can have and that they can process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member.

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, it is a situation now, with what we see here, that the company has shirked its responsibility to a lot of the communities, especially in Harbour Breton and especially in the Fortune area.

I want to read to you again one of the things that the article says, and this is again attributed to Mr. Derrick Rowe. He says: If I don't grow the company, I am not doing my job.

We would like to see the company grow, obviously. We would like to see it grow, but you cannot allow it to grow on the backs of the people in the communities - where they have, through this Legislature, been somewhat, in a sense, different than any other company. It is not like any other company. It is a company that is created by the Legislature, and they do have certain responsibilities here.

This is Risley's promise. I know it is a little disjointed, but I have to read this. This is what he said, too: Risley's promise to shareholders is that FPI share value will at least double, and he will do it while increasing the length of time the plants are open each year without laying off staff.

That was two years ago. Derrick Rowe defines it as a strategy of more risk for greater returns. From a financial perspective, this company has an extremely strong balance sheet. It has a huge amount of working capital and very little debt. I think the amount of money that is available to this company is much greater than has been taken advantage of, and you cannot make money if you do not invest money.

Now, then, there is the situation. What they did not say, Mr. Speaker, is that they would not invest in the communities where they have been traditionally working; like, for example, Harbour Breton and Fortune. It gives me great concern, because they are allowed to walk away without any commitment to these particular towns.

You could talk about this for a long, long time, but that is not the purpose of it. Really, every time I think about it, from morning to night, when I get up in the morning until I go to bed at night, I think about the situation here. The situation is, the callousness with which the company has dealt with the people. They knew back in April that they were never going to open the plant again, and they strung the people along until just about Christmas time.

Only a couple of days ago there was an article in The National Post, and do you know what the headline was, the caption? The scrooge that stole Christmas in Harbour Breton. Do you know what it was? FPI and Derrick Rowe, but Derrick Rowe does not have the conscience to care about the people in Harbour Breton who are facing such an uncertainty this Christmas. Some of them told us a few days ago that their EI had run out. Over 200 will be out on January 17. That is a major problem. That is a real crisis situation, but he does not care. Reported in the paper - as I said, it is all about people. Yes, it is all about people all right. Go down to Harbour Breton and tell the people it is all about people. Go into Fortune and tell them it is all about people. It is all about people. It is the people, his shareholders, who he promised, when he took over control of the company a few years ago, that he would double their shares. It has not happened, has it? He has not grown the company like he would like to have grown it.

I am telling you, the goals that they set for themselves have not materialized because they have not been honest with people. They have not done what they said they were going to do, and they have led people astray. I will not go so far as to say they lied, because I am not allowed to say it, I guess, in the Legislature, but there certainly have been a lot of untruths.

I look forward to, as I said, with the new act, giving the minister the responsibility to say to FPI, we are not going to allow you to do it. We want your plan. If you divert from it, then we want to be able to ensure that the people who work in towns such as Harbour Breton and Fortune can continue to do so, and if you move out then we will require of you your quota which you have been processing in that particular town.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LANGDON: The quota that you have been processing in the town remains with it, should you leave.

That is the whole idea - and that is what I have been trying to do over the last week or so, every time I have spoken, with the people I have talked to, including the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries - that somehow, collectively, we have to find a way to make FPI somewhat accountable for the things that they have done here. They just cannot walk away from a community after spending about forty years there, and people have worked their lifetimes for. They have to be accountable, and hopefully at the end of the day we will be able to make them accountable and show the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that, as a Legislature, as government, do care about people and we will make the necessary changes to ensure that their future is secure and it is viable.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A few words to close debate on Bill 57, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: That is all right, I say to the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, no offense. I would not blame you for not wanting to listen to anything I am going to say here this afternoon. I know that is not what he said, I know. If everybody on that side was as good an honourable man as him we would be all the better for it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, I am going to close debate on second reading of Bill 57. In closing debate, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to a couple of issues that were raised by the Leader of the NDP, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, as it related to section 10 on production plans. I do not have it right in front of me here now. That was something that people in the industry, in the processing sector - when I say processing sector I mean the workers. I am not talking about the plant owners because maybe they would not want to have this as much as we would think that it is necessary to have it.

The processing workers and some of their representatives suggested to Mr. Dunne - whose name has not been taken in vain over the past number of days. He was admitted, by me, to have done a report. It was a good report that we accepted in principle and we have been using it as the basis for the changes in our fish processing policy and changes to the Fish Inspection Act. We accepted it in principle. We never, ever said that we were going to take it to the letter of the report, but nevertheless, I wanted to clarify that.

On the production plan issue. We believe, as did Mr. Dunne, as did the people who made the recommendation to him, that there is a value for all involved if companies were forced - before they receive their licence for a given year - to state upfront what their production plans are; to identify the raw material that they have; the raw material that they expect to source; what type of workforce they expect to operate for that year based on that raw material supply; what they plan on having them do; what type of pack outs they plan on doing; how much of their crab production, for example, they are going to do into two-pound packs; how much they are planning on putting into meat; how much of it they are planning on shipping to Japan, the U.S. market, China. Those type of things are what we envisage would be in the production plans. Of course, that production plan - when you talk about, in some ways, commercially sensitive information - would be submitted to the department, not for public disclosure, but there are certain requirements.

Additionally, if you couple that with the minimum processing requirements, restrictions, or the ability to impose minimum processing requirements, we think that we can help move the situation that we see right now with crab production, for example, where the vast majority of it - 97 per cent, I think it was in 2003, of our crab went out in sections. Some of that went on to China, for example, for further processing. We do not think that is acceptable. I do not think anybody in the industry or in the Province thinks that is an acceptable scenario. We made a move last February 4 - it wasn't a big move but, nevertheless, it was substantial compared to what was in place before - to insist that 10 per cent of crab production be done in, what we call, post-industrial pack stages; two-pound packs, meat or whatever. It was up to the industry to decide.

We made significant moves on that this year, Mr. Speaker. The result being the volume of that production being doubled this year over the 2003 season. That is a substantial move. I say, while some members opposite suggested that we are throwing up our arms over here and saying there is nothing we can do, what did they do in 2001 and 2002 and 2003, for those four or five years where we saw a tremendous erosion in the amount of crab that was being processed beyond the industrial pack stage, where we went from - in the 1980s somewhere up to around 75 per cent to 100 per cent of our production was going into meat, and we realize that we cannot do that today. We realize that.

When we came into office last year with 97 per cent, roughly - just about all our crab was being shipped out in sections and a lot it of going to places like New Brunswick, even, and China for further processing. What did the previous government do about it? Absolutely nothing, Mr. Speaker. Absolutely nothing! The only substantial step that they made - and I criticized them at the time for doing it because I thought they could have taken action without sending it off to a study. What they did, I suppose, in hindsight was all right because it gave us a report that we could then use to form the basis for our policy changes, but they sent Mr. Eric Dunne off to have a look at the situation. Nobody needed to look at the situation in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador to see the changes that needed to be made. Anyway, they did not deal with it. We did. We imposed a 10 per cent production restriction on the crab processing sector this year and it has worked. We have not achieved 10 per cent but there will be repercussions for those who did not achieve their 10 per cent. We will deal with that over the coming months in the form of administrative penalties or something of that nature.

Mr. Speaker, that is action that we have taken that the previous Administration had not taken. That is the type of action that we envisage when we talk about having the industry develop production plans; having them develop production plans in advance of their licence being issued and then providing us with a post-season assessment - I suppose you would call it - of a reconciliation of the year's work against that production plan.

So, that is where we are on that, I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I think that this is a good move forward. It ties into licensing and it is something that will evolve, obviously. It is something that we will not be able to go from zero to 100 miles an hour within the course of one season, but with changes and with movement on both sides, on all sides, I think that it is a very valuable tool for government and a very valuable tool for the industry also, because it ensures that there is some uniformity across the industry in how policy is being applied. Mr. Speaker, that is the action that we envisage here. So, that is answering some of the questions. I am sure there will be other questions coming up over the next couple of days.

Mr. Speaker, I know I am concluding debate on Bill 57, but I have to comment on some of the statements that were made by the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. Mr. Speaker, I have - I readily admit, on numerous occasions - said that we need to have rationalization in our industry. We are going to have rationalization in our industry, whether we want it or not. Whether we want it or not it is going to happen to us because there are so many external forces that are causing pressure on us that it will happen anyway. The only question that we have to ask ourselves is, are we going to try and plan that rationalization? Are we going to try and effect some control over it so that we make sure, Mr. Speaker, that we do not have places like Harbour Breton, with the history that they have in the fishing industry, destroyed overnight? To have their hopes dashed on the eve of Christmas.

Mr. Speaker, if the former Administration had put a plan in place and made the changes to the fish processing policies that they needed, maybe we would not see Harbour Breton going through the trouble that they are going through today. Maybe if the previous Administration had laid out a plan through the twelve years that it has been now since the moratorium, maybe if they had recognized the challenge that was in front of us twelve years ago and laid out a plan and looked at regions of the Province - look at places like the Connaigre Peninsula. Look at places like the Northern Peninsula and the Baie Verte Peninsula and the Twillingate area, Fogo and the Bonavista Peninsula area, looked at those old fishing ports, the history of fishing in those areas and laid out a plan that made sense; laid out a plan for issuance of new licences; laid out a strategy to deal with the crisis that we were faced with in the groundfish industry, maybe today we would have stability in groundfish on the South Coast. Maybe we would not have people's lives being put through the ringer in December, 2004, twelve-and-a-half years after the Northern Cod moratorium. Maybe we would not have people in Englee today concerned about the future of their crab plant. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, if an appropriate number of licences had been issued in the appropriate places during the 1990s, instead of in the chaotic manner in which it was handled by the previous Administration, in the total absence of a plan, maybe a place like Englee would have had a new crab plant before now, a multi-species plant that would handle crab and pelagics. No, Mr. Speaker, they did not do that. As a result of it, the industry is in the situation that it is in, and we, today, are trying to pick up the pieces and make the policy changes and tell the people the truth for a change, have politicians tell people the truth about the situation that they are confronted with, instead of running off to them and telling them how we can run into the Legislature and force a company to do this and force a company do that, when we cannot.

What we have do, and the best thing we can do for the people in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, and in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, is to lay out a plan, a strategic plan, one that makes sense, one that clearly identifies the product that is available and allows people to know what the situation is and allows companies to invest in a way that works for the people of the Province. No, Mr. Speaker, that was not done. That is what we are trying to do today. That is what we have been working at for the past twelve months. That is what we have been working at since the Dunne Report came in. That is why we have established the fish licensing board, or are in the process of establishing it. That is why we have overhauled the Fish Inspection Act that is here in front of us today, and changed the way we handle licensing.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition commented on us, me, allowing FPI to walk away from Harbour Breton and Fortune, and he suggested FPI did not close any plants while he was leading the government. No, Mr. Speaker, they probably did not. They did not close any plants while he was leading the government, but I guarantee you they had them all closed by the time he became leader, in the period of time that he was a minister in a government. That is what happened from 1989-1990 through until 2000.

I am not going to be able to name all of them because I cannot remember them all now, but Trepassey. What did he do in Trepassey? I will tell you what the government's response was in Trepassey, the provincial government's response in Trepassey. I am not saying that they could do anything more, Mr. Speaker, because there was a resource collapse, but what did they do? They subsidized FPI to run the plant for twenty weeks, I believe it was. If I am not mistaken, that is what happened. They subsidized, they paid FPI to operate the plant for twenty weeks so people could get their EI over a couple of years. That is what was done for the people of Trepassey, when the previous government was in place.

What was done for St. Anthony when 850 people were booted out the door in 1983, when they closed it down permanently? Sure, we could not even get FPI to come back when we had a 3,000 ton shrimp carrot dangled in front of their eyes in 1997. They would not even look at St. Anthony; would not come back. We had 3,000 tons of shrimp worth $4,800 a ton at that time for anybody who wanted to catch it. Would they come back? No, sir. Would not come back. So don't talk to me about changing corporate philosophy.

FPI have been trying to make money in their operation for years. The Leader of the Opposition was a member of a Cabinet and a government at the time when that happened. What did he do then? How much power was in the FPI Act then to force FPI to keep plants opened? Apparently not enough. Apparently there wasn't enough, because if there was, they did not use it. What is happening today?

I hear the Member for Twillingate & Fogo talking about FPI with a package, a product of China, packaged in China. It is not Newfoundland and Labrador fish. Newfoundland and Labrador fish, we have some control over. Some, not as much as we like, but we have some. There is no Newfoundland and Labrador codfish being processed in China. I say right now, without fear of contradiction, there is less crab being processed in China in 2004 from Newfoundland and Labrador, since I become minister, than there was in 2002 when the Member for Twillingate & Fogo was minister, because we took action to deal with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Not enough, I admit. I admit it was small but it was action, and action they were not prepared to take in 2002-2003, because they did not know what to do.

Mr. Speaker, to hear people talking about rural Newfoundland and Labrador in the context of being abandoned, when you talk about rationalization in the fishing industry, I remember when the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, before he got struck by lightning walking across the road there - he was sitting in that seat over there and I sat down next to him to have a chat one day. On a number of occasions, when we were on the bus with the FPI Act back a couple of years ago he said it numerous times. He said it many time over there, in the context of a discussion about a crab license in St. Anthony. What did he say? Trevor, boy, I understand what is going on in St. Anthony, but my hands are tied. John left me with an awful mess. He said: Everybody knows it. There were too many licenses issued. It wasn't looked after. There were too many licenses issued. He sat right there in the seat that the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East sits in now, the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, that very seat. The Member for Twillingate & Fogo, when he was the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture said: Boy, John left me with an awful mess, forty-two crab licenses, too many licenses. It should never have gone that far. That is what he said.

Mr. Speaker, I would interpret that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is significant shouting across the floor of the House. I ask members if they would control themselves a little better.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo knows what he said, I know what he said, and many other people in this Province know. The court knows how he feels about the number of crab licenses. Sure, he was on the stand down there when St. Anthony Seafoods took him to court and he said there were too many licenses. He could not issue a license to St. Anthony because of overcapacity problems in the industry. Now, the last time I checked the dictionary, Mr. Speaker, overcapacity meant too much capacity. Now, too much capacity usually means that you have too much ability to process fish, if you are talking about crab. That would sort of lead you to believe that the minister at the time, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, would have thought there were too many crab plants. I almost guarantee that is what he meant. The judge thought that is what he meant. The appeal judges even thought that was what he meant. Now, they didn't agree that it was a legitimate reason for not issuing a license to St. Anthony, because they said he was patently unreasonable in the decision he made. When you have three judges stand up and say that a minister was patently unreasonable in the decision that he took, that doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in me. It doesn't fill me with confidence about the member's ability to make fair-minded, unarbitrary decisions. It doesn't do a whole lot for me, Mr. Speaker, I tell you.

I wouldn't suggest that the Member for Twillingate & Fogo go sticking his halo on too quick, and talk with his holier than thou attitude, because we all know how he feels about the number of crab licences in the Province. The difference between he and I, is, he knows what the problem is, he will talk about it quietly, but he does not have the guts to tell the people what he truly thinks; whereas I - maybe it is like the saying, fools go boldly where angels fear to tread. Maybe I am a little bit of a fool, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TAYLOR: What is? I am not sure what they are suggesting is unparliamentary. Whatever it is, if it is, I will withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On the issue of language, the minister used the word fool. I am not aware of any parliamentary expression or reference which would prevent a member from saying that word in reference to himself.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think I understand what they were talking about, when I said that the member did not have the guts. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, if that was offensive, I withdraw that, but I will say that he did not have the backbone. I am sure that is parliamentary. He did not have the backbone, he does not have the backbone, to tell the people the truth.

Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to do is tell the people what I believe to be the truth. I believe that there are too many licences. I believe we have to address that. If we get a 30 per cent reduction in crab quotas, that is going cause some problems, Mr. Speaker, and the people need to be told that.

Mr. Speaker, we have to ask ourselves - the Leader of the Opposition seems content to have people working in this Province for less than $10,000 a year in earned income, but, Mr. Speaker, I am not content with that. I do believe that if we want a rural Newfoundland and Labrador, we are going to have to be able to recruit young people to our fish processing and fish harvesting sectors in the coming years as our workforce ages and our people retire. If we do that, we will ensure the future of our processing sector, our harvesting sector, and rural Newfoundland and Labrador. If we do not, Mr. Speaker, we ensure its demise.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 57, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act. (Bill 57)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. E. BYRNE: Later, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Later.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act ," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 57)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 5, second reading of a bill, An Act To Enhance The Transparency And Accountability Of The Government And Government Entities To The People Of The Province. (Bill 39)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 39 has been called, An Act To Enhance The Transparency And Accountability Of The Government And Government Entities To The People Of The Province.

Continuing debate, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to make some comments in second reading on Bill 39. This is the stage, of course, where members get an opportunity to say what they think about the bill in principle. There will be another opportunity in the Committee stage to get into the details of each section, but at this time it allows one an opportunity to say whether you think the bill is good, bad, or indifferent, and maybe make some suggestions, if you think so, at this point, as to how it might be improved so that the government would have an opportunity to act upon them before we even get to Committee stage and get down to the actual nitty-gritty details.

The name of this bill is certainly a mouthful, to start with. I have a problem, first of all, with the name that government has put on this, because there is usually some connection between the name, the title, of a bill, and what you hope to accomplish from what is in the bill. An Act To Enhance The Transparency And Accountability Of The Government And Government Entities To The People Of The Province. Now, so far - I do not know about anybody else - since this government has come to power in October of 2003, the use of the words open, transparent and accountable have been very loosely flung around in this Province, and certainly in this House.

Now, I agree, I notice the word is not here - yes, it is here. It is, actually. The word is here: transparency. I agree wholeheartedly that this government is transparent, because you can see right through them. You can see right through them - this government - no question about it. The longer time goes on, the more the people of this Province will see right through them.

For example, you talk about inaction. There is usually an action associated with the words. So far, accountability - we have to see some action, usually, before you equate what was actioned to whether what was said was going to be done is actually done, and whether they were accountable for what they did, how they did it. Here, for example, well, we have not seen that very far in anything. For example, in health care, on the road now fourteen months, seen a lot of restructuring, pushing out, we are doing this. Can't tell you all about it, can't tell you who is going to be hired or fired or let go, and all that stuff in health care, but it is coming down the tubes some time. When we are going to get there, we do not know, but we are definitely getting there.

Program review, it is coming but we do not know when we are going to get there. Stay tuned, the Minister of Justice tells us all the time. Stay tuned. We are tuned. We haven't got much to listen to right yet. All I am getting are those old breakup waves. You don't hear much to listen to, of substance. Also, education, going to restructure the thing. We are going to restructure. Well, we can't tell you about the College of the North Atlantic, of course, because we have a White Paper on that. Stay tuned. We are getting to that. We will let you know about that when we get a chance.

So, now what do we have here? We have a bill here which says now we are going to make the departments of government, and certain public entities, public bodies that we have named here, more open, more transparent and more accountable. I say to the principle of this bill, hogwash. Hogwash, to use in association with what you are doing here, to use the words open, transparent and accountable. This is another paper experience. This is pushing paper to the nth degree. First of all, we have all of these - when we name the public bodies, by the way - you talk about accountability happens here. Public bodies: a corporation, the ownership of which or a majority of the shares of which is vested in the Crown. Corporation, all defined in section 2 of this bill. A corporation whose members are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor or a minister. School boards elected under the Schools Act. Yes, a nice one. A corporation, commission who may, by regulation, be designated as such. So, even ones we do not know about now, if they decide later on we are going to designate them, they will fall under this umbrella too. Then they say who they do not include. The only ones not included are the courts in the Province, but everything else, basically, is going to be included.

Now that we have told you who is going to be covered, now we are going to tell you what each of these bodies has to do, and it depends what you are going to have to do because they are going to have categories set up: category 1, category 2, category 3. Now, mind you, right now, we are not telling any of these public bodies, which we have identified here, which category they are going to go in yet. We will do that later.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I say to the Government House Leader, we haven't seen any list up to this point, and we have -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Well, this is a case again where the Government House Leader might have all kinds of information, I say, Mr. Speaker, but he has not passed it on this Opposition House Leader. I get on my feet here to talk, and now he waves a piece of paper saying we know who they all are. That is transparency and openness. That is accountability we have seen again in this season. I am told, when I am on my feet, this is what we are going to do.

Mr. Speaker, it does not say in here, the criteria. They tell us we are going to do it. Section 4, "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council - that is the Premier and the Cabinet - shall establish the criteria for the categorization of those government entities as either category 1, 2 or 3..." They are not going to tell anybody what the criteria are. The Government House Leader has got what he wants over there now. He is telling me he has them all put in 1, 2 or 3. Where is the disconnect between we are going to establish 1, 2 and 3, we are going to set up a criteria to put them in 1, 2 or 3? We have our 1, 2 and 3, but we cannot tell you what criteria we used. I do not see any of that in here as to what criteria was used to put somebody in a category 1, 2 or 3.

Once you get that, depending on where you are, a 1, 2 or 3, you could have a number of things to do. I would say this came right out of the operational manual of the former Auditor General, if I had my guess. I would say this description, that sounds like something an auditor might be into in terms of accountability. Now that we have 1, 2 and 3, what are going to make you do now in your departments and your public bodies? Even those that are elected, by the way, are not accountable anymore to the people who elect them. They are not accountable anymore. The school boards are not accountable to the public who elect them, they are accountable to the Minister of Education, under this Act. That is what accountability here means. It is, you shall let the government know what you are doing and you shall allow, and you will be forced to have the government control everything that you do. Forget about the fact that you might be elected.

If you are a category 3, you must prepare an activity plan. Just listen to the number of plans we have here now. You probably need to be, as they say, a Philadelphia lawyer or an accountant to figure out what you are going to have to do once you are put in your category. If you are a category 3, a government entity, you have to do a three-year activity plan. If you are a category 2, you must do a business plan. You have to know very carefully where you are. If you are a department, you must do a strategic plan.

We do not have enough civil servants in this Province, Mr. Speaker, to do what we need to do today, largely because we have had cutbacks, and going to have them totaling about 4,000 people. What do we tell all these people in these departments, and public bodies that are out there now trying to deal with emergencies and deal with people on a day-to-day basis, to see the urgent needs? We are saying, whoa the boat. Whoa! Whoa! On top of all of that, you have to prepare either an activity plan, a business plan, or a strategy plan, before anything gets done any further.

The cute part of this - you talk about accountability! This has a lot of accountability. I refer the hon. members to section 20(3). Assuming you have done all of this, you are in the right category, you got there properly, you filed the proper plan, and the minister approved it and did not amend, which he has the right to do, if there gets to be a racket and there is a dispute between what you want to do and what he thinks is right, section 20(3) says, "Where the Lieutenant-Governor in Council receives a report of a responsible minister under subsection (2)..." - i.e., that is where the minister has gone to the Premier and the Cabinet and said: I told the school board out on Clarenville to do such and such and they did not do it. They disobeyed. They did not follow the rules. I am filing a report to him. He gives that report to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council and the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may direct the public body to carry out a recommendation of the minister, and the public body should carry out the recommendation. Never mind here about input. We can have openness, we can have transparency, we can have all the accountability you like, but if we do not like it, we are going to tell you exactly what to do with it. We are going to order you to do ultimately what we like.

Now this is not my understanding of this frilly thing called openness and accountability. They put this out as if they are into some kind of - the goodness of our hearts, we are going to listen to people and we are going to respond to people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Just in case we happen to disagree with you, we are going to carry a big stick in our back pocket. Just in case we disagree with you, we want to know ultimately here who is the boss on this block. Go do want we want you to do, do it in a way we want you to do it. If we don't, we will tell you how to amend it. At the end of the day, if you do not listen to us, we will fire you. Section 20(3), that is accountability. You will know at the passage of this act that every public body in this Province will all know who they are accountable to. No question about it.

I ask on top of that: What is the big difference between the accountability we are going to have under this and this batch of papers that I have to lift around here on my desk? All of this has come in - and there is more than this, I have not had time to put it all together - since we have been here in the last twelve days: annual report from the Rural Secretariat; annual report from the Department of Justice; annual report from the Department of Resources, Labour and Employment; annual report from the Women's Policy Office; annual report from the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development; annual report from the Legal Aid Commission; annual report of the Board of Commissions of Public Utilities. Now I have gotten this to read since I came in here, that these departments have been putting together. I think there is pretty good information in here, a lot of good plans in here.

The Minister of Innovation, Trade and Development, for example, in her plan - it is outlined in this report very adequately, I think, what your department's goals are, what your objectives are, where your offices are, what you plan to do. That is very good. What is the difference between what we are already getting and what we got here, other than (inaudible). There is no accountability. We already referred you to Webster's to look up that meaning. You have to go back and look up the definition of that one; accountability. The bottom line -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the speaker. I ask members on my left for more co-operation.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is nice to see how the government side reacts when you bring something to the floor that they do not want to hear. That is the perfect sign that they may not be on such solid ground as they pretend to be in their principles and this act, when you get the responses that you do, like the Member for Mount Pearl, for example.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks at this point in talking about the folly of this piece of legislation by referring to section 23. Mr. Speaker, that is the biggest folly of all. In fact, it says, "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may establish different time periods within which a public body shall comply fully with the requirements of this Act respecting the preparation of its plans but all public bodies shall comply fully by April 1, 2008." April Fool's Day, 2008, All Fools' Day. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the government has done nothing with this piece of legislation than try to play all of the people of this Province as fools. Absolutely! They even picked a date and put it in there and told us that we are going to be fools. Mr. Speaker, where is your openness, where is your accountability, and where is your transparencies, that even what you purport to be trying to accomplish here nobody even has to have such a thing done and filed until after the next election, which we already see from legislation before this House is intended to be in October of 2007.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

If he speaks now he will close the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Sit down, boy.

MR. E. BYRNE: I do not have to sit down, I say to the Member for Twillingate. I was recognized. It is my right and my objective now to sit down and let somebody else speak.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: If the Leader of the Opposition wants to say a few words on this bill, Mr. Speaker, I will gladly take my seat and provide the opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was a little tardy getting to my feet, and I appreciate the House Leader giving me an opportunity to speak before he will rise and close debate.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill 39, just a few words with respect to second reading, debate in principle as to whether or not this bill is something that is worthwhile, reflects a noble cause, is something that should be done, and something that needs to be done. I must say, I concur with many of the comments, if not all the comments, made by my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

I can best summarize my comments with this phrase, and it is a phrase that many members in this House would know, but recent and new members wouldn't know. There was a leader of the Conservative Party who spent many years in this House as a minister of the Crown in the Peckford days, and also as the Leader of the Opposition, officially in Opposition. It was Ms Verge from Humber East. She used a phrase one time, I think it was in reference to, maybe, Premier Tobin. She was the Leader of the Conservative Party in 1996 election. Mr. Tobin, as he was then - no, he was already Premier, because he had been sworn in as Premier, even though he didn't have a seat in the Legislature.

MR. E. BYRNE: But he went to the polls right away, didn't he?

MR. GRIMES: Yes, because he didn't have a seat, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: A very good distinction - I know I need to say this because the people who are listening and watching would not know what the context is. He did go to the polls because he recognized that he had never been elected to this Legislature in Newfoundland and Labrador, that he was not part, Mr. Speaker, of any mandate for the group that had gotten elected with Clyde Wells, like I did in 1993. He recognized, as well, because of where the polls were, that if he had an election soon - as a matter of fact, the day he called the election, the Speaker would know, the public commentators for political purposes said: He is going to win every seat. He is going to sweep the Province. About a week into the election, the same public commentators were saying: Please, people of Newfoundland and Labrador, elect some opposition members because we need an opposition. It was a very different circumstance, Mr. Speaker, than what is being described in another bill that is before the House, that I have already spoken to, and one I hope that we deal with in due course.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to, as I was saying, with this particular bill, to give the context. Ms Verge, when she was then in Opposition, often used a phrase with respect to that particular Premier, saying: He is all fluff and no stuff. There are some people here who remember it, because they were here. He is all fluff and no stuff because he puts on a great show but when you look behind and say: What did he really accomplish or what did he really do or what did he really say? Her contention was, he did not accomplish very much. He did not really say anything, and that is this bill.

MS DUNDERDALE: (Inaudible) a good analysis.

MR. GRIMES: It is a very good analysis, I say to the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. Innovation, Trade and no rural development, Mr. Speaker. She said that was a good analysis. A very good analysis of this bill. An extremely good analysis of this bill, Mr. Speaker, because it is exactly that: All fluff and no stuff.

We saw it today, the scripted group, they pounded the desks in glee a couple of nights ago, pounded the desks in glee because their House Leader got up and said: We are not lemmings over here. We don't all do the same thing, the same time. And everyone of them pounded the desk the same way, the same time, they were so glad they were not lemmings together.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, wonderful group!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking the members to my left for their co-operation.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I move on, I can tell you that they were so pleased to be told by their House Leader that they should not let anybody call them a lemming, they were not lemmings. They got excited about it. I guess that is the best bit of excitement they have had during this session of the Legislature, was to have their House Leader tell them that they were not lemmings and then they were all allowed to agree together, at the same time that they were not lemmings, Mr. Speaker. So, that is the whole circumstance.

In any event, the scripted group -

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: No, I say to the Member for Bellevue. On that one time, even though the Member for Topsail has distinguished herself in other ways and stepped aside from other issues, for her own good reason, that night she too was glad she was not a lemming.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Yes, she was. They all did, every single one of them who were here. There may have been a few who may have not been present but that is not parliamentary to talk about, Mr. Speaker.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I know that the wannabees up there in the back are chafing at the bit, hoping they will be offered a reward someday by their Premier, by their leader. Then, back to the point I was making, they will be able to be just as scripted as the ministers were today that we saw earlier with respect to this all fluff and no stuff bill.

My colleague looked at the reports that were presented. There were a number of them. I think there were three different ones presented today. They got up and said in the spirit of - what is the name of the bill here? - transparency and accountability. In the spirit of transparency and accountability I want to table this report. The next minister got up, and guess what they said? In the spirit of transparency and accountability. I wonder who wrote that for them? Right from the Premier's office, I would say. Read this little script now. Read this before - don't say what you want to say yourself, read what I have prepared for you. In the spirit of transparency and accountability here is the annual report. The next minister got up - three of them today, I think - and guess what the minister said? In the spirit of transparency and accountability, Mr. Speaker, here is the annual report. They have been told that in everything they say from now on remember to mention transparency and accountability. That does not mean there is anything transparent or accountable about it, other than what my colleague from Burgeo & LaPoile said that it is transparent, because you can see through it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me just say this about the annual reports. Are we in this Legislature, and are the people of the Province going to be better served in a government if every single entity that is somehow connected to the government is required by law to present an annual report every year? Is that going to make Newfoundland and Labrador a better place? Is that going to enhance somebody's life? Is that going to do something to benefit a single soul in Newfoundland and Labrador? It will benefit the people who are employed in every department to do the reports because it is going to create a whole new bureaucracy. People will have to do these reports.

Let me give you one example. I will tell you how valuable they are, how much better off people are going to be because of the report. This, by the way, is a tremendous program. It is the Opening Doors Program, an opportunity for people with disabilities in Newfoundland and Labrador to be given a chance to secure real employment. They did an annual report which was presented here a week or so ago. Mr. MacDonald, who has spent his whole life heading that up and looking for real change for people with disabilities and some progress has been made, was in the gallery when the report was presented. I was anxious to receive the report because I said, okay, let's see now how the people of the Province - myself, as a legislator - are better served because of this report and what it contains.

What do I find on the first page? A message from the Premier. Glossy by the way, these things are not inexpensive. This is not inexpensive. This is the finest paper, glossy, colour, all colours, multiple colour. This is the most expensive printing you can get. So, the first page is a message from the Premier. That is okay. In my view - that is a good message, by the way, that the Premier of the Province, the leader of the government is so supportive of this program for people with disabilities that he would put a message in and say that is the right thing to do. Now, that is fine. That is the government spoken for, as I understand it.

Well, who is on the next page? Picture included, the President of Treasury Board saying, basically, the same thing. Guess who is on the next page? The Clerk of the Executive Council. Now, there might be a reason because this is the head civil servant, by the way. Last year Debbie Fry's picture would have been here. Do you recognize that name? Debbie Fry's picture would have been there last year. Now, whether or not it should be there at all and how we are now better off because it is there, I do not know. Then you have the leader of the public service union. That might be a good message, that the union, too, agrees with this program because it is a good program. Then you go to - oh, another minister. The Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, but the Premier has already said that the government fully supports this.

This is a really good one. Then you go over to another page, Mr. Ross Reid. Does anybody outside of the government circles really know what Mr. Reid's role is these days and why he would word a message, a full-page message with a coloured picture to support the program? Does anybody really know? Is that going to make a difference in anybody's life? Then you have the Public Service Commission, which makes some sense because they are responsible. Who comes next? Here is the one.

AN HON. MEMBER: The real Premier.

MR. GRIMES: No, not the real Premier because the Premier is already in it. The real minister of industry, trade and no rural development, Dr. Doug House. Now, I do not need to go much further. We are now on page eleven. We are now on page eleven and we have not yet heard from a single person who was employed until we get to page eleven, where it talks about barriers to employment and has a message from some beneficiaries of the program. Now, that is the kind of thing that -

AN HON. MEMBER: Is Jim MacDonald in there?

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. MacDonald has no message in it. He is not even mentioned in it, that I am aware of. In any event, that is what this bill, this fluff and stuff piece, now says, that it does not matter what (inaudible) you are, it does not matter how significant or insignificant you are, because I believe everyone will agree, every board and entity that is out there should be important in its own right; but I would believe that people would think that, say, the Geographical Names Board which meets once a year to recommend a name if somebody found a brand new hill or pond or something that did not have a name on it yet - they meet once a year to suggest to the government what the name of that new hill might be. It did not have a name on it yet. That might be Billy's nob, this time next year. That is what it might be called. It doesn't have a name on it on the map.

They meet once a year. I don't think anybody thinks that public entity is nearly as significant as the Opening Doors group. I don't think they do. It needs to be done, by the way. You have to name all the high points and the low points and the rivers, streams, ponds and lakes. They need to have a name, but now that group who meet once a year, by the way, they have to do an annual report. They have one meeting a year, where a few volunteers come in, have a meeting, make some recommendations to the government, and go home, and guess what the law is going to say now? You have to produce an annual report. You have to produce an annual report, because that is going to improve accountability. That is going to do a lot to make Newfoundland and Labrador a better place, that they put an annual report that will say, we met on Friday, January 15, we made a couple of recommendations to the government, and we went home. Whoop-de-do! That is where this particular bill goes.

I listened to the Member for Topsail speak in the debate when it was introduced a day or so ago, talking about how pleased she was, and how this was something she had always tried to accomplish when she was the Auditor General, and I can understand why. This would be a chartered accountant's dream, but it has nothing to do with improving the lot of the ordinary Newfoundlander. It has nothing to do with making political decisions, as a government, when you have tough choices to face and you have to decide what is in the best interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians when you cannot do everything for everybody - and people over there know that from one year in office.

It has nothing to do with being an elected politician accountable to your people and knowing that, in fact, you are in a business where the job is to try to find a way to make things happen for Newfoundland and Labrador and for individuals in the Province; not to spend your time writing reports; not to spend your time putting together a strategic plan for the Geographical Names Board to say, what is our strategic plan this year? Will we meet once or twice?

That is what this says, and I am sure the member, the Government House Leader, will get up and say no, the list says the Geographical Names Board is like category 2 or category 3, not category1, and only category 1 has to do a strategic plan. I know all that, but I am telling you, this is the biggest waste of time.

The member got up and said this. The member got up and said: I will acknowledge that the previous government had started to make some progress - because the departments were already doing the reports. They did not need a law for that, by the way. You do not need any law for that. You do not need to torment and torture every single group of volunteers and others who are out there trying to do a bit of work on behalf of the people of the Province, appointed by yourselves, the government, and you are going to put them through all this rigmarole of strategic plans, business plans, annual reports, activity plans, just because an auditor, at some point in the past, an auditor, said, well, boy, if this was run to be audited then I would like to see that plan.

If I was an auditor looking at it - but listen, folks, the people who pick up this annual report, there might be a few auditors but, I am telling you, it is going to be a lot of people just like me, who are not an auditor, and why do I want a report produced that has Dr. Doug House saying to me something about the Opening Doors Program? Dr. Doug House was appointed to his job by the Premier. The Premier is already on the first page, and I am glad to see his picture there, saying: I, on behalf of the government, support this very worthwhile program.

Now, that is the kind of overkill that we are gone into, only because an Auditor General in the past, retired from the position, who saw great progress made in terms of more and increasing accountability year over year, and acknowledged it in her reports, is living in the past and has now taken a government and convinced them that this is a wonderful thing. How much more open is it going to be? Not at all. How much more accountable are people going to be? Not at all. How much more transparent is it going to be? Not at all, if we see what this crew is saying.

We asked questions. You can only be transparent if you are willing to deal with the issues on a timely basis, issues of the day. A question was asked today, for example - just by way of example - about an investigation that the Premier promised into a Chinese company that is part of the Sino group that is looking at the Lower Churchill, because there was a media outlet that suggested there might be some connection to terrorism related activity in the United States, and that they had concerns about it in the States. A very reputable minister of the Crown got up today and would not answer the question. Never came close to answering the question. Never even got within 100,000 yards of answering the question. Talked about a bunch of other things, started to make a speech and go on a rant about something non-related. It was a very simple question. If you want to be accountable and you want to be transparent, how about answering a direct question?

We did not get any answers today. As a matter of fact, there were three questions asked to that minister, and there was not a single answer. We are still waiting for an answer from the Minister of Health and Community Services as to what proposal was actually sent and put into the government by the Victorian Order of Nurses in Corner Brook asking for a palliative care study. Now, he has not answered the question, but we already know because we ask questions to which we know the answer. We already know, by the way, that no such proposal ever existed. If it did exist, do you know what he would do, in the spirit of openness and accountability? He would put it on the Table of this House right this minute. Do you know why it is not there, even though it has been asked for three different times? Because it does not exist. It never did exist, which is part of the reason why the Member for Topsail is now up in the back corner with the wannabes, when she used to be down in the front as an influential Minister of the Crown. She knew that, and she is the one who acts, in her mind, like an accountant, like an auditor. She is saying, if we are going to do a program, we should be at least responding to someone who asked us for it, instead of having the Premier, without even telling me, dream it up, on the day before he went to a golf tournament in Corner Brook, dream it up and tell people: Don't protest my golf tournament. Stop that strike.

If that is not the case, in the spirit of openness, transparency and accountability, the Minister of Health and Community Services will put the proposal where the Victorian Order of Nurses actually asked to participate in a palliative care study on the Table and disclose it to the people of the Province. It will never surface because it did not exist and it does not exist.

You can bring in all the legislation you like, talking about strategic plan, business plans, activity plans, but let me mention one other thing specifically before I sit down. There is one other particular element here in the bill that I have noted in clause 16. My colleague mentioned some others, I will mention this one and I will finish. Just listen to this one, Mr. Speaker, for a second.

Section 16 says: "Where a plan or report required to be made public under this Act (a) is not made public within the required time; (b) does not include all the required information; or (c) does not present the information in the required manner.."

You have to do these reports and then you are supposed to present them in a certain manner with certain information at a certain time. If it does not happen, what does this bill say? It says: "...then, at the time the plan or report is required to be made public - even though it was not - the responsible minister shall make public a written statement giving the reasons for the non-compliance."

You have all these requirements for the strategic plans, the business plans, the activity plans, the annual report, and you are supposed to put them into the domain. Then, there is the big escape clause anyway. It says, by the way, if it does not show up there is no penalty. If it does not show up, the minister who is responsible for that agency just has to stand up and tell somebody why it is not there. What is the purpose? What purpose is to be served? You give a written statement telling you why it is not there. You create a law saying you have to have your plan, you have to have this, you have to do your report and if you do not produce it, then, Mr. Speaker, all the minister has to do is say, I am sorry, wait until next year or the year after, we will have it ready in a couple of years time.

Mr. Speaker, we will deal clause by clause in Committee, but I can tell you, generally, if this is touted as one of the centerpieces of this session of the Legislature, which it was - this was going to the session that we are convened to talk about openness and transparency and accountability and this is the government's centerpiece piece of legislation. I can tell you, if that is why there is supposed to be renewed confidence in Newfoundland and Labrador then we are going to fall on our face in a bad, bad, bad way if that is the best we can do with respect to this issue.

I look forward to participating further in the debate, Mr. Speaker, as we go to the Committee of the Whole.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to speak to the Act To Enhance The Transparency And Accountability Of The Government And Government Entities To The People Of The Province.

I think my colleague, earlier, mentioned the irony in that the effective date of this legislation, of course, is April 1, 2008, which we all know to be April Fool's Day. Nothing could be more relevant, when you look at the title of this bill and the date that it comes into effect. In fact, the interesting thing here is that because another piece of legislation that we have in this House, a fixed date for the next election is October 9, 2007. The effective date for this piece of transparency and accountability legislation does not come into effect until just about a year or six months after the date of the next election. It is taking quite sometime to even get to a point where this government will put into place plans to show how accountable and transparent they are.

When I look at this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, the one thing that it does bring to mind for me is the fact that we have a Minister of Business who, when he was asked to appear before the Estimates Committee, refused to do so. Now, that is accountability and transparency if I ever heard it. In fact, we waited. We knew that he was out of the country. We offered to do the interview with the Premier, who is the Minister of Business, at his convenience, at a time when he could be here in the House of Assembly to answer the questions we had with respect to this so-called new Department of Business. Well, it never happened, Mr. Speaker, because the Premier, who is the Minister of Business, refused. I have never heard of it before, a minister refusing to meet with an Estimates Committee, but he refused to meet with us to talk about the new Department of Business, about its mandate, about its budget, about his vision for it, about where we were going in the Province with this new Department of Business.

The minister responsible refused to meet with the Estimates Committee and, as the critic for that particular department, I am at a loss in terms of what to ask him, because we have yet to see anything coming out of this so-called Department of Business. What is really ironic was what the government stated as one of its achievements, and the wording on this will just - I am sure if you haven't read it across the floor, then you will really be surprised at the wording here. It says: One of the stated achievements of the government, establish the new Department of Business with Premier as minister responsible reporting to the Premier. Now, if that isn't gobbledygook, I have never heard of gobbledygook. Whoever is writing this stuff for you, you really need to get new writers.

Establish the new Department of Business with Premier as minister responsible reporting to the Premier. Well, that tells us a lot. We have a Department of Business with the Premier reporting to himself. Well, we have accomplished a lot so far, I can tell. He would not come to Estimates and talk to us about this wonderful new Department of Business. In fact, the Department of Business exists because the $1 million budget was money that was pulled out of the budget of the Innovation, Trade and Rural Development Department.

Clearly the emphasis on business, one would have to question exactly what it is the Premier is intending to do, because we do not know. One would have to question if the department even exists, although I think they did hire a Chief Information Officer for the department back in November, but that is as much as we have heard. We have heard absolutely nothing about this new Department of Business that the Premier campaigned on, saying that he was going to take personal responsibility for this wonderful department. He was going to attract investment into the Province and he was going to use his business expertise to really get things moving in this Province. Now, I do not know what that leaves for the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, but to be honest with you we are still waiting to see some really concrete action, some vision, out of that department.

This is a government that campaigned on a vision for rural Newfoundland. We have a plan. We have a plan, we are going to revitalize rural Newfoundland. We know exactly how to do it. Well, lo and behold, back in August, I think it was, there was a meeting in Port Blandford; invited guests to a meeting in Port Blandford. I think the Premier stayed around for a little while. What came out of that meeting? We are still waiting to find out. We are still waiting for that strategic plan for rural Newfoundland, for development in rural Newfoundland. I am sure the Member for St. Barbe up there will be anxious to see the outcome of that plan given that he has already stated that they are now experiencing the highest rate of unemployment ever experienced on the Northern Peninsula. I am sure he is waiting anxiously.

I am sure the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development nor the Premier think that the announcement yesterday for the regional economic initiative is going to carry much wait down in his district when people are looking for some support and some help. We are still waiting for that wonderful rural development vision, that they said they had the plan they were going to put in place, this wonderful strategic plan for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and we are still waiting to hear about this wonderful new Department of Business and all of the wonderful things that are going to come as a result of that department because at the helm is a man with so much business experience that it cannot fail. It cannot possibly fail when you have the Premier, who has all of this business experience, taking responsibility for this wonderful new Department of Business.

Now, we do know that there have been a lot of fees imposed since this government took office. We do know that there have been lots of hardships placed on small business in Newfoundland and Labrador as a result of increased fees. We do know that they are experiencing some difficulty, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, but we have yet to hear of any positive initiatives - anything that would show that this government is being accountable, let alone transparent.

Mr. Speaker, we are also in a situation today when we are dealing with a very serious situation with FPI and the impact that the decisions of FPI are having on rural Newfoundland, particularly today in a community in my district, and that is in Fortune. We know the impact that their decisions have had on Harbour Breton, and that community is now in a crisis because they really do not know what to expect. They are hoping they are going to get a community quota. They are hoping somebody is going to come through and help them.

I know that the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development stood in response to my colleague when he asked the other day for some help and support from her department. She did stand to say that they would offer help. I would be interested in finding out exactly what they are doing, because it is one thing to stand in the House and say: Yes, we are quite willing to offer whatever supports we can, but, at the end of the day, it is whether or not you actually come to the table and offer some concrete solutions. That is what my colleague has asked of the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development for Harbour Breton, which is in his district.

In Fortune, we do not know what to expect. We do know that this Minister of Fisheries could and should act on enforcing his authority on the Fishery Products International Act. The piece of legislation that we have in the House of Assembly is there and can be acted upon by this government, this minister and this Premier if they, in fact, decided to do it, or wanted to do it. They have the authority.

Derrick Rowe, CEO of Fishery Products International, has already said he has two masters. Well, we are asking the minister responsible to be accountable, very much in keeping with this piece of legislation that talks about transparency and accountability. You are talking about the government being accountable. Well, one of the ways that you can start now, move now to do something and show that you are indeed being accountable to the people who elected you, and to the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, would be to move quickly and tell FPI that what they are deciding to do is not right for Newfoundland and Labrador. Recognizing that it is a business that was created by $252 million of taxpayers' money, created with an obligation and a moral responsibility to ensure that fishery continues in its traditional patterns in parts of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not happening, and we are seeing a government advocate its responsibility because it has the authority to enforce the act and it is choosing not to do so.

So, today we have seen the last of Harbour Breton. We are very fearful about what is going to happen to Fortune. Again, it is about accountability; accountability of this government to hold FPI to its obligation, and accountability of FPI to the people who have helped that company make all the profits that it has made over the years.

We met today with the union from Fortune and they are bewildered and confused. On the one hand, the CEO of FPI is saying: We are waiting to hear back from the union about what option they want. Then when the union says: Well, we want the option that will allow us to continue in Fortune. You have Russ Carrigan of FPI saying: Well, to accept that option is like driving off a cliff, like committing suicide.

So, really they are saying to them, here are two options. They really have not given them the fine details yet around those options. They have given them numbers. Like option one, 223 people will remain in Fortune; the other 120, no employment for them. But, if they go to Marystown, if they move us a block to Marystown there will be employment for 223 workers but they will also open up a line at Burin, which supposedly will employee another 120, taking care of the 353 workers on the seniority list for Fortune. When we ask: well, if you have enough fish, if you can keep the plant going for 223 in Fortune, would you, as part of option one, go ahead with the line in Burin, which will employ the other 120? And I am told: No, that is not on the table. No! No! We will only employ 223 in Fortune, but if you want us to employ all 353 then we will offer the line in Burin. Blackmail!

My assessment of it is that they are being told: You take this or this, but if you take this one here, the employment for 223, then you are like driving off a cliff. Russ Carrigan's words. That is why we are calling on the government to be accountable, to enforce the legislation, to talk to Derrick Rowe, to talk to the board, and say: You cannot do this. We know you want to make a profit. We know you have shareholders but the irony is that they are forgetting the biggest group of shareholders, and that is their workforce. People who have worked in this fishery for FPI for years and years and years, who have helped them make the profits that they have made so that the shareholders can enjoy the luxury of making some benefit back on their investments, and so they should. If you have people who are willing to invest, then it is only right that they reap the benefit of that and profit from it, but you don't do that at the expense of those very people who worked for you all of these years to ensure that your product was processed and sent to market as a top quality product, something of which we can all be proud.

The question, of course - it really does beg the question, Mr. Speaker. How much profit is enough? How much profit is enough? Are they saying because Fortune lost money - and that is what they are saying, by the way, that Fortune lost money last year. So, are they saying: Fortune, too bad. If you do not make a profit every year we are going to have to close you or we are going to move your workers to Marystown, because if we put you all together in Marystown we will not have the same overhead and we will make more money for our shareholders. Forget that these employees now have to leave their community, drive in all kinds of weather - especially like today - to Marystown, spend time there, come back home, get up, go back to work again tomorrow, when they have a perfectly, good facility in Fortune where they can continue to process fish and do what they have always done and do their job for FPI because they believe - or they believed, I should say - in FPI and its mandate.

So, when you talk about accountability, it works both ways here. It is the accountability of a government in holding FPI accountable, but there is also accountability when it comes to FPI to its workforce. What the Minister of Fisheries said today in terms of rationalizing the fishery, tell the people in rural Newfoundland that. Now, of course, he has thrown out Bonavista. So, now we have the fear being raised down there that, again, Bonavista is now on the chopping block; that maybe Bonavista is not making enough money to satisfy Mr. Rowe, as CEO of FPI, and the various shareholders.

There are any number of issues with this government that can be brought up in terms of accountability. Obviously, FPI is one of them. The new Department of Business that we have yet to hear about, it has been over a year and we are still waiting for the Premier to tell us all about his vision, this wonderful Department of Business, but no word, secrecy. Where is the transparency? Where is the accountability in that?

Of course, I would be really remiss if I did not bring up the health care facility in Grand Bank. When you want to talk about accountability, when you want to talk about transparency, all the Premier had to do, all he had to do when he was campaigning, when he was asked on three occasions about whether or not he would complete that facility in Grand Bank if he became Premier, all he had to say was: I would sure like to. I will have to see if the money is available, but I would sure like to do that. Or even: It is my intention to do that if the money is there - but, at no time did he qualify his commitment.

On the contrary, what he said - and we have it on tape - was that the facility was started in Grand Bank, it will finish in Grand Bank. I know, when I asked the former Minister of Health about that, there was no commitment from her, because clearly the Premier had already told her that this is not going to happen even though I promised it. It is not going to happen, so don't you dare commit to it because I only said that to get elected. I only said that to try and win the seat. That is the only reason I committed. Forget that the needs assessment is there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: Forget that we know how badly this facility is needed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking members again for their co-operation. The Chair is listening to the Member for Grand Bank.

The hon. the member, continuing debate.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Sometimes when you say things it just rubs a nerve, especially when you are telling the truth, and then all of a sudden they are saying: We don't want to hear that. We don't want to hear the truth. We don't want to hear anything that is going to embarrass us, or that is going to embarrass our leader.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I have no qualms about embarrassing a leader who will go into a district and play on the emotions of the people who live there, play on the emotions of people who really believed when he said he would complete the facility in Grand Bank. I have no qualms whatsoever about embarrassing or talking about an individual who will not live up to that commitment.

That was important, not only for the residents of the Blue Crest but also for those employees who are now occupying the oldest, in fact the only, cottage hospital left in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is deplorable, it is dilapidated, and I know, with the analysis and the review that is being done, there is a very real fear down in Grand Bank that cottage hospital will close. Instead of doing the right thing and moving ahead with a new health care facility, there is a very real fear that the Minister of Health, under the direction of the Premier and the Minister of Finance, will, in fact, close that clinic. I cannot give them any assurances because I say to them: Well, you had the Premier's word when it came to the facility itself, and today we know how good that was.

You know, we have the largest gazebo in North America down there, and I know that it is the intention, or the government is hoping, to take it down; but, I can tell you, that stands as a reminder of how accountable, how reliable, how transparent, this government is. It stands as a monument - I will not say to the PC government or to this government - it stands as a monument to the Premier (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are going to take a short recess for supper. We will be back at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: This House is now in recess until 7:00 p.m.

[The remainder of today's sitting will be found in Hansard 55A.]


December 9, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 55A


The House resumed at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to rise to close second reading on Bill 39.

I am sorry. I apologize, Mr. Speaker. One second. There was an agreement. I know the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi wanted to speak to second reading on Bill 39, An Act To Enhance The Transparency And Accountability Of The Government And Government Entities To The People Of The Province, so when he concludes I will stand to conclude second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: By agreement, the Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thought the Government House Leader may have been changing the matter for debate, but I did want to say a few words on Bill 39 because it is a matter of some detail here in the bill but it is also one of those issues that government, and the PC Party in particular, made a big issue about during the election so it deserves a little bit of response and characterization of what exactly they are doing as compared to what they are saying in terms of their plans, and also as to what their plans are. So, if we are talking about enhancing the transparency and accountability of government, well, maybe it is time to have a little look, a closer look, I think was -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: It is time to have a closer look and just see how transparent some of the government's plans are. I do want to say a few words about it. I think it is a good idea that we have plans. That is not a bad thing. We need to have plans, and having two- or three-year plans, I wonder how much of the resources of government are going to be taken up doing that, or how detailed these plans are going to actually be, and whether they will really help. I mean, three years is a long way out to look, but I think we have seen, for example, there are certain kinds of plans that government will actually take upon and do, and there are other kinds of plans that I am not sure they are likely to do. I will give you an example. You look back about the things that really matter to me, and I will give you an example of the child poverty debate in the House of Commons in 1989 when Ed Broadbent, as the then Leader of the NDP federally, I think it was one of his last acts in the House to present a motion on the issue of child poverty, and it was a motion that was accepted by all hon. members in the House of Commons at the time, and all parties, including the government of the day which was then a PC government, by the Liberal Opposition, the Bloc Quebeçois, and the New Democratic Party, of course, and that motion was to end child poverty by the year 2000. That was a very laudable goal, and it still is a laudable goal. Not only was it a laudable goal, it was something that was doable. It was doable. Certain things had to be put in place to make it happen, and those kinds of things other countries did. Finland did, Sweden did, Belgium did in the 1990s and, in fact, reduced child poverty to a minuscule amount by enacting programs that make a difference; but, something else happened in the 1990s in Canada, and that was the era of Paul Martin as Finance Minister. He set about another set of goals, and his goals had to do with the deficit, starting in 1994. One of his ideas was to eliminate the deficit, to get rid of the deficit. He had goals and targets every year, and he set them and he met them. Some of the ways he did that, Mr. Speaker, were very extremely painful to people across the country and people in this Province. They eliminated, for example, in 1994, any federal subsidy and support for social housing. We, in 1993, got an international recognition as the best country in the world in terms of a national housing policy. What happened, Mr. Speaker? The very next year, gone, no national housing policy. What did that do in the ensuing six, eight, ten or twelve years - ten years, I guess, now? What it did, Mr. Speaker, it increased, it helped to increase, child poverty in this country to the point where it went up by 50 per cent instead of down as it was supposed to.

We can have plans, two-year plans and three-year plans, but if we do not put the kind of things that we want into the plans, if we just have generalized goals to improve this or to look at that, we are not necessarily going to have any real results here, and it is going to be some exercise in report writing. We are going to have lots of reports. We see them. They pile up on our desks every day, lots of reports, but there are going to be even more. There are going to be annual reports, there are going to be three-year projections, and there are going to be reports on the progress.

In principle, I do not have a problem with that but I do want to see us talk about projections with some real numbers, especially on the social side, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to have to see a plan that talks about social issues, about poverty, for example, and say our goal is to understand more of the causes of poverty. I do not want to see a plan that says that, Mr. Speaker. I would like to see a plan that says that we are going to improve the number of social housing units available in this Province by a certain number by a certain date. I want to hear us say that we are going to have school lunch programs in, instead of 15 per cent of the schools that we have now, we are going to have them in 100 per cent in three years, and we are going to do it by saying next year we will have 20 per cent, the year after that we will have 50 per cent, and the year after that we will have 75 per cent. That is the kind of plans that I want to see, Mr. Speaker. That is what I want to see. If we are going to tackle these problems, that is what I want to see. I want to see that because I believe these problems are real but they are fixable and they can be dealt with if we actually tackle them and take on the issues the way they should be. If we are going to get into planning vague ideas about what we can and cannot do in terms of report writing - if all we end up with is a number of public servants spending all their time in creative report writing, writing something that will pass muster as a report but not really commit the government to anything, and the minister will be happy because he will not actually have to produce. If that is what happens, Mr. Speaker, then there will be a total colossal, gross waste of time, bureaucratic churning, wasting public money, and just fooling the people once again.

We already seen some examples of what kind of things end up in reports, and I am going to give a few now because we see these reports piling up. These are new styles, new forms - some of which I find a real strange imposition. Now, we can have report writing. The Minister of Rural Development is very interested in this, and I am glad she is because we have a new concept in report writing. I have the Rural Secretariat and the Strategic Social Plan Annual Report, April 2003 to March 2004, signed by the minister, giving a little overview of the Rural Secretariat, what the achievements are and priorities and all of that. It is very interesting, on page 2 of the report we have the Overview of the Secretariat. In that we have the Vision, the Goals and then we have something called Lines of Business. Now, I did not know that the Rural Secretariat was in business. I thought they were there to generate activity in rural Newfoundland, to build up the capacity of communities to be able to be self-sustaining, to provide jobs. I did not know they had lines of business.

Not only is the Rural Secretariat in business, Mr. Speaker, I find out today that the Women's Policy Office is in business, too. They have a report. Their annual report gives us a Letter of Transmittal, an Entity Overview, Mission statement, and then Lines of Business. The Women's Policy Office has a Lines of Business. No wonder, Mr. Speaker, the minister gets up today, and when I asked her a question about pay equity, she starts talking about money. She starts talking about the $11 billion of debt.

Well, Mr. Speaker, if the Women's Policy Office is reporting Lines of Business, I guess it is not a real surprise that when you talk about equality rights the minister talks about money; the minister talks about the provincial debt. Well, Mr. Speaker, the $11 billion debt that they claim to have, when you add up all the things that PriceWaterhouseCoopers wants to put into the mix, that they talk about - you talk about it, Mr. Speaker, you claim is our gross debt. That money will be there tomorrow. That obligation will be there tomorrow and the next day, and the week after that and the week after that. Are we going to give up women's equality because there is debt lying around? Is that the idea of this government? You wonder what the mentality is.

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible) a narrow view.

MR. HARRIS: A narrow view. The Member for Trinity North says a narrow view.

Well, Mr. Speaker, if equality rights cost money, the message of this government is that it must take second place to the debt. There is a philosophy in here. I would like - the Member for Trinity North can speak on this bill if he wants, but you go into each and everyone of these reports. The Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities, they have Lines of Business, too. Lines of Business for the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities. Even the Department of Justice has Lines of Business. The Ministry of Justice have Lines of Business. They have an overview. The Lines of Business are progress and accomplishments.

Well, it is amazing, Mr. Speaker. The Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, they are into core business lines. What are we doing here? The Labour Relations Agency, Lines of Business. The mandate of the Labour Relations Agency, the Vision, the Legislation and then Lines of Business. Labour Management Relations is a Line of Business. Safe Workplaces is a Line of Business. Policy, Planning and Legislative Development is a Line of Business.

Mr. Speaker, what is the mentality of this government? Are they trying to inflict a corporate culture on every department of government? Is that the kind of thinking that they want everybody in the public service to go on, to start thinking about: well, you are not actually performing a governmental activity, you have a Line of Business. I am sure if we were talking about the Liquor Corporation, their Lines of Business. They sell liquor, they sell various things. They have real estate holdings, they sell products, they are into promoting the restaurant trade and all of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: That is a line business. Mr. Speaker, I did not know that the Department of Justice had lines of business or that the Women's Policy Office had lines of business. I thought that the Ministry of Justice, for example, was there to ensure that our legal system is working properly, that we had court houses and that we had ability to give legal advice to the government and all the other important functions that the Department of Justice carries out. I thought that the departments had activities and different areas of responsibility. I did not think that they had lines of business.

Mr. Speaker, some people on the opposite side may regard that as being insignificant and petty. I will say it for them because I am sure some of them will respond to say that. But I want to say why this is important because we are embarking on legislation here now that says we have transparency and accountability, but it is all about reports. It is all about reports and what kind of reports they are going to make. The framework and the template for all of these reports is already set, lines of business. It is all lines of business, and I do not understand it. I frankly do not understand it. I mean, you cannot put a round peg in a square hole. You cannot just say, here is how the corporations and the business operates and we are going to impose this on government and say government is going to operate this way now and whatever it is - the Department of Education has lines of business. I haven't seen their report yet. They have lines of business. I guess primary education must be one line of business and secondary must be another line of business. I do not know what other lines of business they have. You know, I am concerned about that because it influences the way of thinking and everything then becomes a matter of dollars and cents; even women's rights, as we found out today from the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

If we can postpone, Mr. Speaker, if we can wave around the $11 billion every time someone talks about human rights, if we can wave that around every time someone talks about human rights and asks this government if it going to put an end to discrimination against women and they say: oh, we owe $11 billion. Well, I do not think people's rights are very important in this Province if that is the attitude because that $11 billion is going to be around for a fair while. If we can say, as a response to anybody talking about their rights, and particular women's rights or any rights that are protected by our Charter, that we owe $11 billion and therefore we cannot make any commitment on a human rights issue, then I have a real problem with that, Mr. Speaker.

The other aspect of this that I find a little disturbing has to do with the powers of the minister. If the minister does not like the plans, by the way, the minister can change them. That is probably a good thing, for the most part. If you are the minister of a department and your officials come up with a report, or one of your agencies - the Liquor Commission, for example, reports to the Minister of Finance and says they are going to do A, B, C, D and E and the minister says: No, I do not like that. I do not think you should be getting involved in that particular activity, or I want you to make more money or get you involved with something else, you can ask him to change it. I can see that that could be a good, positive thing. After all, the minister is responsible to the House, the minister is responsible to Parliament. That is our system of ministerial responsibility. So that is important.

But, I do find that we do have - we did have anyway - elected school boards. I guess we might have them again. I do not know. We may have them again but they are one of the organizations that has to have a three-year report. They are elected. They have a three-year report and they have to give that report to the minister. If the minister does not like it he can change it. So now we have an elected body of school boards who we believed, or I believed, had certain responsibilities under legislation, but they did not report to the minister. They reported to the people who elected them. Now we have a situation where, under this legislation, they have to have a three-year report and that report goes to the minister who, if he does not like it, can say we want it changed. That activity must be changed and he has the right to revise it or ask for revisions to it before he or she approves it. I think that is something that needs to be looked at, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to truly have independent school boards.

The other issue that I have here - maybe this is a minor point and maybe somebody could help me with this one - there is something about performance contracts here. Clause 21 says, "The responsible minister of a department shall enter into a performance contract with the deputy minister of that department and the chairperson of the governing body of a public body shall enter into a performance contract with the chief executive officer of the public body."

Maybe I am reading this wrong, Mr. Speaker, but it seems to me that a minister is supposed to be responsible to the House of Assembly, not to the deputy minister. If the minister is going to enter into a performance contract -

MR. E. BYRNE: You read it wrong.

MR. HARRIS: Okay, the minister says I read it wrong. Well, maybe I am reading it wrong. Maybe I am reading it saying: the minister shall enter into a contract with the deputy. Maybe I should be reading it: the deputy minister shall enter into a performance contract with the minister. Now, that I would understand, Mr. Speaker. That I would understand. That part I understand, if the deputy minister had to have a performance contract where the deputy minister had obligations and some things to meet, then I would expect -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: That is the way I would read it, but it strikes me that maybe is the wrong way. My understanding of parliamentary democracy is that the minister is responsible to the House and that is something however we might be able to take up in committee.

But having said all of that, Mr. Speaker, I think the idea of planning is good. I have serious reservations, unless we are going to have planning that has definite goals that people can stand behind and achieve and not just get into some kind of circular churning out of reports, and I hope that they will take this burgeoning corporate culture out of the template and let departments do their public service that they have been doing for years. If they want to refine it or change it or make it better, that will be fine, but to impose a corporate culture and to tell everybody that when they are performing public services they are actually engaged in some line of business, is wrong. It is a wrong approach and it is not going to lead to better public policy in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

If the hon. Government House Leader speaks now he will close the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Do you know something, Mr. Speaker, after listening to speakers opposite tonight, is it any wonder we are $11.5 billion in debt? I have to ask certain members certain questions. If we were here tonight, for example, and we did not have any legislation like this, I bet you dollars to donuts that members opposite in Question Period would be up asking: Why aren't you accountable? Where is the strategic planning? Where are the outcomes that we have talked about? Now we are putting a piece of legislation in place, a small piece of legislation - a big piece of legislation that deals with a variety of matters of accountability in government.

I want to take a couple of comments just to demonstrate what my colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Works, talked about last week. He said, the Opposition, he has never seen an honourable crowd like them. They will take a morsel of truth, a kernel of truth and stretch it to somewhere that it does not even look like what it exactly is because it isn't exactly what it is. The Member for Grand Bank, for example, and the Leader of the Opposition, got up and said, in the bill - just let me get the bill, Bill 39 - it says, with respect to - I will find it here first now. I have it here. I can quote from it. In the bill, it talks about: all the strategic planning in government, from every government agency and department, will be implemented by - and the key word is by - 2008. They took that small term and said: There you go. They are not going to be accountable until after the next election, because the next election, they just announced, is in 2007.

What they neglected to say - now just listen to the logic of it - that all government departments and agencies of government must have a three-year strategic plan in place by April 1, 2008. Then they went on to say - it bears repeating - that crowd over there do not believe in accountability, that crowd over there sitting in government today, because they just announced that the next election is going to be the second Tuesday, 2007. I bet you when we get that tonight, the Leader of the Opposition will not even support that bill. That is my prediction, but we will see.

The fact of the matter is this, with the bill: once this legislation is passed, the planning process begins immediately for everybody. We recognize legitimately that some departments, agencies of government, will not be ready with a three-year strategy plan right away because it is a new thought, moving in a new direction, and things do not happen in a week. So what we have set out for ourselves is a path by where government entities, Crown agencies, can be completely accountable.

What really is disturbing, what I find disturbing, is that the Leader of the Opposition, members opposite - and I will focus on the Leader of the Opposition for a moment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Here is what he said: What a waste -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am finding it difficult even to hear myself, with members opposite screaming out. I wonder if we can -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair had called order a few seconds ago, because there were conversations going on from one side of the House to the other. I ask hon. members if we could show respect for the Speaker and respect for the person who has the floor, and I ask members if they could co-operate with each other. If people have conversations which they wish to carry on, I ask them to take them outside the Chamber.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Here is what the Leader of the Opposition said. He called it a complete waste of time. Look at all of the annual reports we have now, he said. Pick them up. We have them all now. Now we are going to have more reports. Sure, they are all audited. What is wrong with that?

The fact of the matter is, there is nothing wrong with tabling an annual report. Let me explain something to the Leader of the Opposition. There is a difference between doing an audit and doing a strategic plan. Anybody can go in and do an audit. It is about how much money went into a certain department or agency or entity, how much went out, and tracking that to see exactly where it was spent, why it was supposed to be spent in that manner, and was it spent in the manner in which it was supposed to be spent. A strategic plan is a little different, I say to the Leader of the Opposition. It is part and parcel of the reason you are sitting in the seat you are sitting into today, because you do not know the difference between an audit and a strategic plan. That is what I say to the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The function we are talking about is that every entity in government, for the first time, every department in government, for the first time, will have to engage in a strategic planning process. That sounds great from up here. Let's talk about it from a practical point of view. Let me ask you this: Do we hold, as a laudable goal for ourselves, Mr. Speaker - let's take a few practical examples. In the Department of Education - let's go department by department - do you know that, today, young boys in junior high and senior high do not add up in terms of their female counterparts in academic studies? An absolute fact.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Bellevue, when you want to speak you can stand and get recognized. Right now it is my turn. If you want to continue to interrupt, not a problem, but I will make this deal with you, that when you stand and speak I will not interrupt you. How does that sound? All right?

Mr. Speaker, if we hold as a goal, for example, as I just said, do we hold as a goal that we would want, as a government, for young boys in our classrooms to do as well academically as their female counterparts? I think we do. Right now it is not happening. What are the reasons for that?

There are a variety of reasons for that. Let's say the Department of Education sets as a goal for itself, in terms of strategic planning, that in the next three years we want to see those test results improve. Here is where we are today. Here is where we would like to be tomorrow, or in three years from now, and what is the path to get us there? I believe that program is already in place, but in terms of strategic planning what we have to do, Mr. Speaker, and what this act obligates us to do, in law, is to say: How are we going to improve that? What is the plan by which we are going to get there? Three years from now we will be able to measure the results, to be able to say to ourselves and to the public that this is what we thought, this is a goal we set for ourselves three years ago, this is how we are going to get there, and in three years we will be able to measure it. The same way financially, this bill commits to strategic planning from the government's finances point of view.

Mr. Speaker, it is beyond me, when I listen to the commentary on this bill, what is fundamentally the trouble with that. What is the trouble with implementing strategic planning, business planning, activity reporting, depending on the agency or entity that you are? There is nothing wrong with it. It is an important piece of legislation and we are very proud to put it forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 39, An Act To Enhance The Transparency And Accountability Of The Government And Government Entities To The People Of The Province, 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 Enhance The Transparency And Accountability Of The Government And Government Entities To The People Of The Province. (Bill 39)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Enhance The Transparency And Accountability Of The Government And Government Entities To The People Of The Province," read a second time, ordered referred to the Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Order 4. I understand that some members opposite have some concerns and we will get a chance to do that in clause-by-clause just for a little while.

I would like to move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider matters with respect to An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And The Elections Act, 1991. (Bill 40)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House on Bill 40, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And The Elections Act, 1991.

Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on the said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Bill 40, "An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And The Elections Act, 1991."

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, I will make a few comments with respect to clause 1. I do believe they have been made before, and I am not formally proposing an amendment at this stage but I would like to make this point again for consideration.

I believe it was our Opposition House Leader, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, who made the point in debate at second reading. It is clear, and I think there is an absolute necessity in our parliamentary democracy, in the system that we have, for the Lieutenant-Governor, as the Chief Administrator for the Province, to retain the right, no matter what the law says with respect to elections, to be able to deal with an extraordinary circumstance of a non-confidence vote and so on, despite a four-year time limit on elections, to possibly call an election for extenuating circumstances. It could range from the extreme and maybe the absurd of saying what would happen if we have a law that says the election is every four years, to really go to the extreme with it - and let's hope it would never happen, and I do not expect it to every happen, but suppose there was a fire in the House of Assembly when all the members were in it and we all died. It is clear, then, that the Lieutenant-Governor needs to have the right to call an election, I guess. There is not much point in calling forty-eight by-elections.

The notion is that -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: No, but I make the point, Mr. Chair. The Government House Leader is talking about how silly I am looking. I said it was an absurd example, to make a serious point. The point is, I am agreeing that the clause needs to be here. The clause needs to be here, because that might be a bit absurd and that might be a bit ridiculous, but even as I described, and I think I might have described it myself in debate at second reading, if you have as well even a majority government, which we have now, that does not preclude the possibility that there might be a vote of non-confidence in the government. It is very doubtful with this crew, because we have seen the track record for a year and it seems pretty obvious so far that unless something really catastrophic happens they will vote in whatever manner their leader and Premier wants them to vote in any event, so it does not seem too likely with this particular group, but it could happen.

Remember, if you are creating the law, you are creating the law for now and for 10 years' time and for 20 years' time and for 30 years' time, unless somebody else, in an intervening period, changes it, so it is not just for this group for this year and for this term of office. Because, I can tell you, I can make a prediction now that there are certain parts of this bill that will change, even if the current party stays in the government and their current leader leaves voluntarily. I would make a prediction today that there are parts of this bill that the same party would change once the current leader vacates office. I would make that prediction today without much reservation of being proven wrong.

With respect to clause 1, Mr. Chairman, the other thing that is here - and this, I understand, is in legislation in British Columbia, which is the only other jurisdiction in Canada that has a fixed term. It is the only Canadian model we can point to, that they have a four-year fixed term. As a matter of fact, it was the first bill that they passed in their Legislature as a Liberal government after they were elected almost four years ago. They got elected in the spring, in May, and the first piece of legislation they brought to the House of Assembly in British Columbia was a fixed term election. They set the date for the election, and it is May coming up, four years after, which is the same concept here. They did leave a provision just like this clause, saying that an extraordinary circumstance - and there, by the way, even more so than here, there was a majority government where the Liberal majority was seventy-seven out of seventy-nine seats, so there was not much chance either, unless something really absurd happened, that the Lieutenant-Governor was going to need to call an election, but they put the provision in to respect that notion of a parliamentary tradition that has to be respected.

Again, Mr. Chairman, the only issue raised was that the Lieutenant-Governor in the Province acts in all manners and in all matters upon the advice of the government, upon the advice of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which is the Cabinet. It does not say here that is the case. It says, "Notwithstanding subsection (2), the Lieutenant-Governor may, by proclamation in Her Majesty's name, prorogue or dissolve the House of Assembly when the Lieutenant-Governor sees fit."

I am only asking the question for clarification, because if you read it - and in any other parliamentary tradition the Lieutenant-Governor takes an action, including this one, upon the advice of the Cabinet.

Now, upon the advice of the Cabinet is omitted here. I contend that it should be, and I am assuming the omission is deliberate and that this is an action taken by the Lieutenant-Governor of his or her own volition. If that is not the case - and I just ask the question for clarification here at the Committee stage - then would, for greater certainty that is the intent, a phrase inserted saying: Notwithstanding subsection (2), the Lieutenant-Governor may, of his or her own volition, prorogue or dissolve the House of Assembly when the Lieutenant-Governor sees fit.

I just raise the point, Mr. Chairman, to seek maybe an answer to the question, because the assumption, reading it literally, is that it is the Lieutenant-Governor acting without any direction or suggestion or orders from anybody. It is the Lieutenant-Governor acting on his or her own volition. So, I would ask the Government House Leader or the Minister of Justice, or whomever is dealing with that particular issue, whether or not that is the intent.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, let me answer by reading the clause. I believe it is very clear. "Notwithstanding subsection (2)..." which sets out when the next election will be, which is the second Tuesday in October, 2007 "...the Lieutenant-Governor may, by proclamation in Her Majesty's name, prorogue or dissolve the House of Assembly when the Lieutenant-Governor sees fit."

I think that is pretty clear. It is there to protect any and all members, not just government, and I would hope that the Leader of the Opposition would recognize that this clause is there as advised, in seeking advice from the public service and Legislative Counsel, to do one thing and one thing only: to protect Parliament in the event of something unusual, something outstanding or extraordinarily happening. That is all it is, no more, no less. That is the answer.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against?

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Clause 2. Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I have to raise concerns about the provision that government is planning to do with respect to the change in automatic elections being required as a result of a leadership review of the sitting government. I mean, this is something that is not really required. In fact, it is more of a political issue than it is an issue for elections or for constitutional type changes here. You know, we do have a system of responsible government, where the government is responsible to the Legislature. The Legislature can decide whether a government stands or falls, and if a leader, whether it is the leader of an existing party or a new leader, if that leader does not have the confidence of the membership of the House of Assembly, the elected people, then that leader cannot sit in the House and must call an election.

I know that this government, while they were in Opposition, had a lot of concerns about the approach that was taken by the previous government.

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: As I understand it, clause 2 deals with the by-election, the situation of thirty, sixty, ninety days. I think that is what we are into, just for clarification for the member opposite, because I know in Committee we are clause-by-clause. I just want to point that out.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) as opposed to the clauses of the bill itself. I realize we just voted on that.

I will say, for the record, although it has been voted on in Committee, the concerns that I have about that with respect to the leadership of a political party, that is something that really ought not to be done, Mr. Chairman, because we have already a situation where the Premier, with the powers that he has within government and over Cabinet, a considerable amount of power, we do not need to enhance that power or enhance it more in the minds of the public in a system such as we have.

I will address the specifics of clause 2, Mr. Chairman. That particular clause, I do not have a problem with clause 2 in the Committee stage here, changing the three months to sixty days. If we limit our discussion to that for this particular debate before the vote is taken, I will say that I agree with that. We should shorten that. I will have something to say about clause 3. In fact, I have an amendment to clause 3 when we get to it. To change the figure, three months, and substitute sixty days, which will require an election to be called within sixty days of an actual - within sixty days of a vacancy, a by-election must be called, I support that, Mr. Chairman, and I will not have anything further to say about it.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 2 is carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Clause 3.

CHAIR: Clause 3.

Shall clause 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, just as we move to clause 3, again, so that we all understand that this is a bill that is making amendments to two different pieces of legislation, and clause 1 and clause 2, which have now been passed through the Committee, are changes to the House of Assembly Act, as I understand it, I do understand again today, if recollection serves me appropriately and well, that the Government House Leader earlier today gave notice that there is another amendment coming to the House of Assembly Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Yes, I am just checking, for the public record. There was notice given today that there is going to be another amendment to the House of Assembly Act

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: I have been told by our House Leader what it is, but the point I am making is that the bill before us is An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act, and also to amend the Elections Act. The point that I am making is this: There are two amendments to the House of Assembly Act that were just approved in the Committee. There are two different ones: one about the fixed date for the election being every four years, and one about a by-election going from three months for it to be called to sixty days. There is notice already given that we are going to further amend that same act for different issues, but it is the same act.

The point that I am making, and the point I made at second reading, too, is that in the next act that we are going to amend, which is the Elections Act, which is clause 3 that we are now speaking to, there is an amendment proposed here but I understand that, because of the changes that we have just agreed to in the House of Assembly Act about the fixed date, that there are going to be more changes other than just the ones that are here in clause 3, needed to the Elections Act, in order for the whole piece to knit together and to fit together.

Let me give an example, Mr. Chairman. What we are moving to now, which is clause 3, which is not another amendment to the House of Assembly Act but is an amendment to the Elections Act - and I would gladly have someone stand up and correct me and put me straight if I have now strayed. The Elections Act, 1991, in section 3, is going to be amended by renumbering it as subsection 1, section 58, and then section 58 of the Elections Act is amended by adding immediately after subsection 1 the following, "Notwithstanding subsection (1), the day of polling to be fixed by the proclamation required under section 57 shall, with respect to a by-election, be a day not less than 21 clear days from the date of the proclamation nor more than 30 clear days."

We are talking about the by-elections. Now, there are other issues - and that has to be changed in the Elections Act, so there is a reference in the House of Assembly Act to when you are going to have a by-election. The point is, if you are going to now make a law, and we are going to approve in this Legislature a law, about having an election in fours years' time, on the second Tuesday of October, then we have to clarify the present law under the Elections Act as to: When does that election officially start? We know when it is going to be held. We know when people are going to vote, because there are huge differences at play with respect to raising money, with respect to advertising in the media, with respect to the involvement of third parties in terms of issues related to the action and the election itself that have to be covered off, and either we are going to agree that all the same provisions that are there now will apply to that election - we already know when the election day is, but the question is: How many days before that is the Lieutenant-Governor actually going to say that the election has now begun, so that candidates can start spending money, Mr. Chairman?

The Government House Leader is suggesting to me that he does not know what I am talking about. I am asking for clarification, which is the whole point, so just be patient with me. I will try my best to make the point so that I can understand it, so I can make an informed decision when I am about to vote, and that maybe others who are listening to me, who are not legislators, who do not have a lot of experience with these particular acts - I happen to have run in five different elections under three different Elections Acts that have been changed four different times, and we are making a change again. The one thing that is important about elections is to know what the rules are, and you need to know all the rules. You do not only need to know some of the rules, and knowing when the day of the election is actually going to happen is just one piece of it.

We have forty-seven members in here now who just went through a process with their campaign managers and their CFOs who, once they got their nominations, they started asking them: When can I start putting up signs? The Member for St. John's North is nodding, because he wanted to know. When can he start putting up his signs? When can I actually raise money? Because political parties can raise money all year long, but candidates can only raise money once the writ is dropped, so the phrase goes, once the election is officially started. The Government House Leader is saying, well, I will straighten it out for you because - in a flippant manner, a person who has been in more elections than I have. The Member for Lewisporte, a former Premier, the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs, when I asked the question in second reading, I said: What about how long the election is? He said: Don't be so stunned boy, it's four years long. But it is not four years long, you see, it is nowhere near four years long. The law today says it is a minimum of twenty-one days and the law today says there is no maximum. Today's law, today's Elections Act says you have to give notice twenty-one days in advance of when the poll is, a minimum, but the law today for general elections does not say that there is a maximum of thirty days.

Now I understand we are amending it for purposes of bi-elections, so I am asking the questions. Just let that be one pointed question that the Government House Leader could clarify for me. Is the amendment that we are making for bi-elections, which says it is a minimum of twenty-one days and a maximum of thirty days - because what we just said is that a bi-election has to be called in sixty days of the vacancy and finished in ninety. So the election period cannot be anymore than thirty days. The actual election period cannot be anymore than thirty days, unless you are going to call the thing five days after the person resigns and still say the election day is not until ninety days later. So these are serious and important questions.

The point I am making, Mr. Chairman, is that there are four or five issues like that which are not clarified in this bill. My whole point of contention is that if we are going do it and if we are going to pass a new law about a fixed term, knowing when the election is in four years time - on the second Tuesday of October in 2007. I believe someone said that is October 9. So, we know when we are going to the polls and before we pass this, unless we straighten out the rest of the rules, when is it going to be called? When are candidates going to be officially declared? When are candidates going to be allowed to start collecting money? When are candidates going to be allowed to start putting up their signs? Are we going to wait until the middle of 2007 or the first week - because we will have to change the act again. We will have to come back to the Legislature and change the act again. I am suggesting, for purposes of continuity and better understanding, that all of those issues should be done at the one time.

The government has told the whole world, and have already gotten credit for the fact, that they believe in and are going to deliver on a fixed term. So let's put together the other pieces and do it once and do the whole thing as a package rather than amend the act now and then come back next year or the year after or the year after and amend it two or three more times to straighten out the rules for the election because there is no haste for this, no need to do this before Christmas of 2004 when the election is not until October 9, 2007. Unless I am wrong, unless there are no missing pieces, than my suggestion is that we should figure out what all the parts are of an election package for the new election, which is three years from now - two years and ten months or so - and let's put it together, tie a ribbon around it, do it right, get it right, get all the rules done in one go at the Elections Act and electoral reform instead of doing it three or four different times.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me begin. First of all, yes, there was notice given to amend the House of Assembly Act today. What that had to do with his question and his point is beyond me. The Opposition House Leader and I, in a meeting of the Internal Economy Commission, the notice that was given today has to do with what is defined as the precincts of the House of Assembly. It has nothing to do with this piece of legislation here. The Leader of the Opposition knows that.

Secondly, with respect to his view of the world that, you know, let's take our time now because there is going to be a bunch of more amendments to all of this and we will tie a little ribbon around it. When it is all ready as one package we will bring it forward. What other amendments is the Leader of the Opposition talking about? What is he referencing? I have no idea what he is talking about and I doubt that he has any idea of what he is talking about.

His point is this, here is what he is saying, that government could call the election on June 1, 2007 and it will not be until the second Tuesday of October, 2007. So, here is the logic. Here is practically what he is talking about. We are going to call the election, and we are saying tonight that the election will be held on the second Tuesday in October, 2007 and, for some reason - and this is where the conspiracy theory comes in, I think - we might call the election two months before or three months before or even six months before. So, we are going to call an election a couple of months beforehand and dissolve the House. We are going to let the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador dissolve itself for two or three months. So, essentially, we are going to put it on automatic pilot to be run by the Clerk of the Privy Council while forty-eight members here today - and, potentially, two more forty-eights in terms of Opposition, whoever wants to run - so we can go out and campaign for two months or three months or six months because we want to have an advantage to raise a few more dollars than them. I mean, come on. That is what we are talking about. It is too foolish to talk about, Mr. Chair. It has just absolutely gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.

The fact of the matter is this, this legislation deals with three things. It deals with a fixed four-year term. I suppose we support that. It deals with a by-election reducing the time right now if a member resigns or retires or dies, or for whatever reason a seat becomes vacant, that the time required when that seat must be filled is now reduced from a six-month period and then some, to a ninety-day period, maximum. I would think that is a good thing.

The third clause that it deals with, essentially, is that if a Premier of the government or leader of the government resigns, retires, dies, whatever the case may be, for whatever reason, once a new leader is elected by his or her political party, and once they become officially the Premier of the Province, that person must call an election twelve months after that. That is all this bill is about.

Now, if the Leader of the Opposition and members opposite want to read something else into it, there is nothing I can do about that, but, frankly speaking, that is what this piece of legislation is about, about those three things and those three things only.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just to speak in committee at this particular section. Unlike the comments of the Government House Leader - and it is not like him to be flippant with his answers that he is giving. He is usually very responsible and very serious about what he says. Making light of what was put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, in this case, does not solve the problem, because we still have a problem, even though the Government House Leader might think we do not.

What we are suggesting here to the government -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I will certainly try my best to explain what we see as a problem. Whether it is accepted as being a legitimate problem or not by the government, that is the government's call, but, please, all I say is listen so that we can try to explain what the problem is.

The difficulty we are trying to get past here is to have consistency in elections, whether you are in a by-election or in a general election. You have set a good stick here now, a good guide, to say that in the case of a by-election, if somebody dies, we know there is a maximum now of how that election has to be dealt with. You have to call it within sixty and you have to do it then within thirty. So the maximum period on the actual election period is going to be thirty days maximum and twenty-one days minimum. All we are suggesting over here is, if we are going to have consistency, like knowing the maximum period of an election and the minimum period of an election in a by-election, why can we not have and know the maximum period of an election and the minimum period of an election in a general election? It is consistency.

If you go into a by-election - if the Member for Gander, for example, resigns for some reason and we have to call a by-election, we know that election has to be held, maximum, thirty days and under the Elections Act we already have, it is a minimum of twenty-one. All we are saying is, whether it is for him or his district that is vacant, or if it is for all of us, if we call an election we know we are playing by the same rules. You know it is going to be a maximum of thirty days and you know the minimum is twenty-one. That is all we are suggesting here. We are not talking about conspiracy theories. We are talking about being certain. It just brings certainty to all of us, and by having that certainty we also avoid any problems that might occur with regard to the other provisions of the Elections Act, and I refer specifically to the financial pieces. When can we start the fundraising? When can our CFO be appointed, and those things? If we all know now that there is going to be an election on October 9, 2007, that is certainty, that is great, but there is also nothing wrong with also saying that we know the maximum period of that election is going to be thirty days.

Look back over the history of this Province. How much longer in our history has any election been beyond thirty days? I do not know. Have we had very many? I do not think that we have had very many.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: The Government House Leader says: Well, I do not know if we have had any. I think there was one that might have gone thirty days.

The fact that we know governments do not do that and go for extended periods, all we are saying is, let's make it certain so that we know by law, then, and we know for the certainty of everybody in here and everybody whoever might want to be in here, that it is a maximum of thirty days in an election, a minimum of twenty-one, and everybody can run their lives accordingly, and it does not conflict with anything that is currently in the Elections Act about election finances.

Now, I do not think that has anything to do with conspiracy theories. That calls for certainty in by-elections, certainty in general elections, and gives everybody the same rules and the same playing field.

You are and have been commended for the piece about the fixed date. All we are saying is, let's be certain on every date now. That is the only suggestion that is being made here.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I will just give leave to him to make a point on this.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the Government House Leader for giving up his turn.

I just want to say a few things about this. I think there is a serious point to be made here and it does not need to involve a conspiracy theory, but it does need to follow up on the reason for doing this. The reason for doing the fixed date in the first place is to avoid the possibility of abuse by a sitting government. As the Opposition House Leader has said, you know, I got up in this House a couple of days ago and praised the government for taking on this measure because it is something that actually diminishes the power of the sitting government in terms of the calling of an election, but we do have a similar kind of sets of problems that come up in terms of the possibilities that exist for what might be called abuse or manipulation if the date when the election is going to be called is unknown, and they do revolve around the spending of money. Let's just take an example.

Under our Elections Act, you can spend money on media tomorrow. If you want to advertise your political party, and you have the money to spend, you can buy media advertising tomorrow to advertise your political party, and you can buy that right up to the day an election is called, but the day an election is called, the official election period, you are not allowed to spend money on media until a certain period of time. There are rules about that sort of thing. If you happen to be a well-healed party and you have lots of money, and you wanted to spend it to influence public opinion, then you could do that up until it suited you and then call the election.

If, on the other hand, the other political party had lots of money and they were engaged in a campaign, and it was nearing the time - because we all know when the election is going to be, as of the passage of this bill. On October 9, 2007, there is going to be an election, so if somebody starts spending money the first week in September, right after Labour Day, the government can decide to put a stop to that by calling an election.

I think the point is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Yes. The point is that if we - and I am going to be moving an amendment to this clause in an event. I am not going to suggest it right now, because we are talking about a different point, but I think the by-election should be a fixed (inaudible). This business of twenty-one days or thirty days or twenty-two days or twenty-five, I think that is a lot of malarkey, frankly, Mr. Chairman. If we have an election period, let's say here is the election period. It is going to be twenty-eight days or it is going to be thirty days, or whatever it is, because it fits very well with the fixed election date. If we have a fixed election date of October 9, 2007, which happens to be the second Tuesday in October, 2007, well, let's have a fixed election period, twenty-eight days, thirty days, thirty-five days, twenty-six days, whatever it happens to be. I happen to think that twenty-eight days is an appropriate number, and that is the amendment that I will be moving to the by-election one, but to have a fixed date does provide certainty about it.

The point that I have made, I say to the Government House Leader, which I am making at your request again - if I can get your attention - the point is that having some certainty does affect spending rules, particularly spending money on media advertising and all of that. If I have your attention, I will repeat the concern that I have. For example, a twenty-eight day period would put everybody on the same playing field as to spending plans prior to an election. For example, if you had a big war chest and you wanted to spend lots of money on media, you could spend, spend, spend, right up until the date that an election is called, because once the election is called then the rules kick in. Then you cannot spend in terms of the amount, or you are not allowed to spend on the media until so many days into an election, where you can then spend on media advertising.

The rules are important, and if we are changing the rule about the fixed date in order to avoid the kind of abuses that can take place, then let's go one step further and ensure that we not only know when the election is - which we now do, or will after this is over - but we know when the election period is. If we can have a period of twenty-eight days, for example, as I am going to propose here, then I think we should do that.

I am not sure what the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting, though. Maybe he is suggesting that we just drop this altogether right now. I am not sure if what he wants - maybe he can get up and explain it - what he would like us to do is perhaps just vote down or get rid of clause 2 altogether. I am not sure I agree with that. I think there may well be by-elections that might take place in the next while, long before we have to deal with the coming of a general election.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: No, I am not going anywhere, but you never know. Someone could die. These things happen. There could well be by-elections. We had several by-elections in the last session. I, myself, was elected in a by-election for the first time in this House in 1990, and a number of other members were, so it is not unusual to have by-elections, I say to the Member for St. John's Centre.

There is some value, I think, in passing this clause now to provide for some certainty in by-elections, but I think, by listening to the Leader of the Opposition, what he is suggesting is that we either not deal with this now or add another clause that deals with the certainty of the other election.

I guess I will let members deal with this particular point raised by the Member for Exploits, the Leader of the Opposition, first, because I think it needs to be disposed of one way or another, and I leave the Government House Leader an opportunity to speak on that point first.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me be clear. I will ask the Leader of the Opposition now. I am going to put forward what I believe the Opposition House Leader said. I could not follow what you said, and I apologize for that. I am not trying to be flippant because there were a number of things that had nothing to do with other things, in my own view. However, having said that, all you are asking us to do is to do exactly what we are doing for a by-election, to say a minimum of twenty-one days or no more than thirty days. Is that the point the Leader of the Opposition is making for the general election call? I will pose the question in Committee for him to answer.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, that is one of the issues and my contention is that there needs to be a clarification of that because my understanding of the current act for general elections is that it says only that the notice and the election period must be a minimum of twenty-one days. So, the government is bringing forward a proposal saying that for by-elections, that the election period, for all that it entails - which is very different than the rest of the year, any year - is now capped at thirty days; somewhere between twenty-one and thirty.

I have heard the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi suggest that he thinks, in the true spirit of fixed elections, there should also be a fixed election time, not only election day, because that would then be consistent. If the election is every four years and if every election is going to be held at twenty-eight days, I think he is going to propose, then that all fits, but to leave - and I am not talking about any absurdities and so on but the notion that it is very open-ended. It is going to be, at least, closed into a twenty-one to thirty day time frame for by-elections but there is no attention brought - I am talking about, is the government going to come back again, was my question, and have another amendment about the time for the general election or are we just never going to talk about it again? So, maybe you could answer that question. Then I would like to raise two or three other points because he said: I wonder what else he is talking about? I would not mind raising two or three other points and tell you exactly where they came from and why I would not mind talking about them.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me say, first of all - for anybody who is listening or is interested in the debate that is happening tonight. The suggestion that the by-election in a particular constituency, which is to be called, what we are suggesting is that it must be called and over with within a ninety-day period. Now, that is not new. That operated from 1991 - when you were in the government, a Minister of the Crown and Premier of the Province - to 1997, I believe, if I am not mistaken. So, that is not a new provision. No one should be excited by that. We have been there before. We left it and I agree, we should be going back to that time period, simply because it puts a smaller time frame on when a seat, if it becomes vacant, is filled again.

We have already operated under that sort of version. At the same time, operating under a version of the Elections Act that will allow the Premier of the Province - he went through this, the Leader of the Opposition did - to call an election for a minimum of twenty-one days. Now, the Premier could have called it for twenty-eight, twenty-four, twenty-six, twenty-seven. If you want to talk about consistencies and leave an impression of not being consistent, I flatly reject and deny that and disagree with it. You have a right to your opinion, that is not necessarily the one that we have, and if we had it we would have put it in the amendments anyway. However, having said that, I am prepared to look at the notion put forward by the Opposition House Leader saying, a minimum of twenty-one days, no more than thirty.

Now, the point the Leader of the Opposition is making - I believe he made it in second reading - with respect to, we are going to be back amending the Elections Act again, and he talks about campaign finance reform, issues related to leadership conventions. We have been through all of that, but if you would like to raise it again, fair enough. It came from commitments made by the party, but this is the act that we are dealing with tonight. If the will is here to deal with these particular sections, fair enough.

What I am going to do now, Mr. Chair - while we are having a look at just the potential amendment in terms of a minimum of twenty-one days, no more than thirty, I am going to ask the Committee to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

Motion carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

MR. E. BYRNE: Later, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Later.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you. I am trying to get the bill here now, Mr. Speaker.

Order 10, second reading of a bill, An Act Respecting Court Security, Bill 54.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Order 10, Bill 54, An Act Respecting Court Security, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Court Security." (Bill 54)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am very pleased to be able to rise in my place this evening to introduce Bill 54, An Act Respecting Court Security, which will provide additional security to the police and the Sheriff's Officers relating to court security functions.

Mr. Speaker, we ask our judges to perform a very important role in our society and because of that role, we ask them to adjudicate disputes between our citizens. Sometimes these are matters which cause great emotion, especially - our judges are asked to incarcerate people. They put people in jail. They are also asked to adjudicate disputes involving emotional matters, such as family disputes and matters involving custody of children. I am sure all members appreciate how emotional some of these battles can be and how sometimes reason does not prevail in such disputes. So it is very important that we provide our judges with security. It is very important that our judges can perform their very important role in society, and they do so in an impartial and fair way and they can make their decisions freely without any duress or without any pressure on them whatsoever.

We have a wonderful system. We solve our disputes in this country by referring our disputes to third party adjudicators, namely our courts. There are other ways of doing it of course, but the way we do it, everything we have, the laws we make are based on the rule of law. They are under our Constitution and we accept the law because the laws that we have are not made by despots. They are not made by dictators. They are made by the members in this House, and while many of our citizens may disagree with the law, many of our citizens are entitled to go out and impose the law and speak out against the law and change the law. But, until that happens, we all obey the law and any disputes concerning those laws are settled in a third branch of government, the judiciary, and we accept the decision of our learned judges.

Mr. Speaker, the Sheriff's Office is responsible for overseeing court security arrangements and every court in the Province, including the provision of court security to all courts operating in St. John's, the Unified Family Court and other courts outside of St. John's, based on risk assessment during jury trials. From time to time the authority of the Sheriff's Office, to search or deal with persons of a suspicious nature who enter various courts, has been challenged. While Sheriff's Officers are regarded as peace officers under the Criminal Code of Canada, they may act at a court's or judge's specific direction. The potential for a challenge to the general search authority or the general search power in such circumstances exists when the basis for their action is based on their own discretion.

There is nothing in the Criminal Code, or the present law, which specifically allows peace officers to search unless they have reasonable and probable grounds. A person they believe has engaged in or is about to engage in a criminal offence, there is no statute in this Province that specifically authorizes court security to search, prior to entering a court facility, an individual or the items they, in fact, are carrying. Neither is there a specific statute which defines areas of a court facility as a secure area or that authorizes a Sheriff's Officer or a peace officer to deny entry to such an area.

Mr. Speaker, courts in this country have held that the principle that someone in the general population visiting a court might be carrying a weapon is not a good enough reason to subject any person visiting such a site to a search unless specific reasonable and probable grounds do exist. In the absence of a statute giving them the general authority to search attendees at court, police and Sheriff's Officers are without proper and immediate authority to do so.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will enable police and Sheriff's Officers to conduct proper searches of individuals in and around court houses and authorize these officers to relieve those individuals of weapons and prevent them from entering the courthouse or other defined secured area if they do not comply. You will also make it an offence for all but authorized persons to possess a weapon in a court defined area, to enter such an area after being refused entry, and to refuse to leave a defined court security area after having been asked to do so.

The purpose of the bill is to provide additional authority to peace officers, not to limit any other powers that they may already have; ensuring that proper security exists in and around the precincts of court houses for judges and their staff, for all litigants, for witnesses, for spectators and the media; and civil and criminal proceedings is a necessary precursor to enable the courts to function properly and independently and to properly carry out the role that they are meant to carry out in our society.

Mr. Speaker, the bill also contains specific sections authorizing the Minister of Justice to make regulations defining who may possess weapons in a court area, what these weapons may be, the criteria for authorizing persons to possess weapons, designating restricted court security areas, and other matters relating to carrying out the intended purposes of the act.

The courts and the High Sheriff will be consulted prior to making these ministerial regulations, and nothing in the act will affect the jurisdiction or the authority of the courts.

Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia all have legislation concerning court security, which authorizes the screening of individuals who enter court facilities.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are making a speech, are you?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Just referring to copious notes.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will enable Sheriff's Officers -

AN HON. MEMBER: Copious or dubious?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Quite copious.

- and police officers to effectively carry out court security functions when called upon to do so. Passage of the Court Security Act will enable them to properly discharge their functions without fear of an inappropriate challenge to their authority.

Mr. Speaker, it is for these reasons that I am pleased to introduce this bill in the House, and I ask for the support of my hon. colleagues on all sides of the aisle in the passing of this needed legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to make a few comments on this particular bill that we are dealing with here, Bill 54, regarding court security.

The minister is quite right when he says that security is very, very important and necessary in our court systems and court areas. Right now, there are some things lacking as to what judges and security officers in the provisions of the court realm are or are not able to do. We have a lot of volatile situations. Not only do criminal matters lead to incidents of outbreak sometimes, and protests, but we quite often, in family matters, experience the same thing, probably even more volatile than we do in criminal cases. So, we are supportive of this bill, will be supportive of this bill. The only question I would put to the minister - and probably by the time we get to the Committee stage he can have an answer for me - deals with the issue of why we are making a distinction between this bill defining what happens in the Supreme Court and the Unified Family Court, whereas we are leaving it to regulations in section 11 to be made by the minister.

I am just wondering if he could educate me as to why we are making a distinction in determining - if we are letting them have the powers and we are defining where the areas or zones would be, why are we making a distinction between this act saying what that will be in the case of the Supreme and Unified Family Court, whereas it is left to the minister in section 11 to do it by way of regulation. I do not understand why the difference in doing it. They are all courts. They all have to deal with the same type of cases, virtually, and they all have the same security needs. Why would one be designated by the act and the other one be designated by the minister? Maybe the minister can fill me in as to what the logic might be on that distinction.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, support the legislation in principle. This is second reading, so I will indicate that to the minister, but I do have a significant question to raise that I would hope the minister will address in Committee stage.

The minister, in his speech, used the word search when he was talking about people entering the courtroom, in terms of searching for weapons. Now, search is a very defined term in law and there are all sorts of legislation about search and seizure, what you can do and what you cannot do, what is reasonable and what is not. The legislation does not mention the word search at all. It talks about screening. To me, the notion of screening is the kind of thing that happens at the airport when you are walking through a metal detector and you are being somehow or other screened, because somebody looks at a screen to see what is in your briefcase or whatever. It is actually a detection device as opposed to a search.

MR. BARRETT: The same as we have up here.

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Bellevue indicates it is some sort of screening device for entry into the House of Assembly.

I do not have a problem with screening, frankly. That seems, to me, to be a reasonable approach to take, particularly when we have had instances and concerns when fairly high tension matters are going on in the courts, and Sheriff's Officers should be satisfied that we do not have people coming into courts to seek vengeance for one reason or another. We have had instances across the country where people have been shot in courtrooms, including lawyers. Some people might laugh at that, but lawyers have been shot in courtrooms because the person on the other side of the case did not like the treatment that they received, or the fact that they represented some other party, a spouse or another party, through litigation. It does not happen very often, but I can understand there needing to be some powers in the Sheriff's Offices to control security in courts. The notion of screening for weapons seems, to me, to be a very reasonable one and I would support that.

Perhaps the minister can clarify, when he closes debate, that when he was talking about search, he could clarify that was not what he was talking about, but that he was talking about screening. Maybe there is a form of screening that is related to padding the people's clothes, checking for weapons; that might be considered screening, perhaps, I do not know. Search and seizure, or search in general, can be a number of different things. I think if we are going to get into giving the Sheriff's Offices powers of search of this nature, I think that might not be reasonable.

I see that screening is defined here as being searched. Oh, so we do have a definition here, Mr. Speaker. We have a definition of screen which says, "... to search using methods prescribed by regulation".

I think we need a little bit more clarity on that, Mr. Speaker, because if we are talking about screening devices, electronic screening devices, I do not have a problem with that, but now we are saying screening means searching. Perhaps the minister ought to explain what it is that his department intends to provide in terms of regulations with respect to screening devices, or whether we are talking about physical body searches, and how far those regulations would permit Sheriff's Officers to go in terms of conducting searches of people.

I would like some clarity on that because it is an area of the law which can lead to a lot of concern and anxiety, Mr. Speaker, and potentially interference with people's rights if searching is defined in a particular way or, in this case, screening is defined in a certain way that provides too much liberty for people who are conducting these searches.

We are talking about security officers who are looking after courts. If we have screening devices that are electronic in nature, I do not have a difficulty with that. I might not have a difficulty with certain limited methods of searching, but I do not think that we should give full rights of search to Sheriff's Officers for this type of duty.

Having said that, I support the notion of improving court security and I think we do need some system to ensure that people have the right kind of authority to ensure our courts are safe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

If the minister speaks now he will close the debate at second reading.

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

I certainly appreciate the comments of the Member for Quidi Vidi. Obviously, as he has himself pointed out, screen and screening is defined to include search using methods that may be prescribed by the regulations.

As I said earlier, I think it is extremely important that we put in place a system security that will protect the courts, protect the judges, and protect the witnesses and the litigates and those people who are in the courts. There have been incidents, as the hon. member mentioned, where serious situations have taken place in the courts across the country. We are going to make sure that all modern technology is used to ensure that people are properly screened and, if necessary, if they have to be searched, they will be searched. The provisions of this bill and the provisions of any regulations that would be proclaimed under this act will be reviewed as a courtesy by the Chief Judges of the Provincial Court and the Chief Judges of the Court of Appeal and the Trail Division to ensure that there is protection; that the proper security is there, but, at the same time, that we not infringe or impede the rights of individuals to their own dignity and privacy.

I want to thank everybody for taking part in this debate tonight and I look forward to the further discussion that will take place.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 54, An Act Respecting Court Security, 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 Respecting Court Security, Bill 54.

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. E. BYRNE: Later today.

MR. SPEAKER: Later today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Court Security," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 54)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am seeking leave, actually, to do first reading on some bills because I want to get them to the floor. I believe it is okay with members opposite, we gave notice, just so we can get bills circulated.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there leave for the hon. Government House Leader to do first readings?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreement has been reached.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I would like to do, if it is okay, because there are six bills, if I could read them all? Would that be fair enough?

MR. SPEAKER: Is there agreement that the bills be read in consecutive order and called for first reading in that manner?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Agreement has been reached.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move first reading of the following bills: Bill 59, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act; Bill 60, amendments to The Financial Administration Act No. 2; Bill 62, amendments to The Pensions Funding Act; Bill 63, which is the Public Service Pensions Act, 1991; Bill 65, The House Of Assembly Act amendment.

That is it, Mr. Speaker, five.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce the following bills: Bill 59, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law; Bill 60, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No. 2; Bill 62, An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act; Bill 63, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991; and Bill 65, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce said bills?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

On motion, the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce the following bills:

"An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law," carried. (Bill 59)

"An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No. 2," carried. (Bill 60)

"An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act," carried. (Bill 62)

"An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991," carried. (Bill 63)

"An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act," carried. (Bill 65)

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law. (Bill 59)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No. 2. (Bill 60)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act. (Bill 62)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 63)

A bill, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act. (Bill 65)

MR. SPEAKER: These bills have now been read a first time.

When shall the said bills be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: Later today.

MR. SPEAKER: Later today.

On motion, Bill 59 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

On motion, Bill 60 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

On motion, Bill 62 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

On motion, Bill 63 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

On motion, Bill 65 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I have a message from His Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: We have a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

All rise.

The message reads:

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 March 31, 2005 by Supplementary Supply in accordance with the provisions of section 54 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1967. I recommend these estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd: ____________________________________

Edward Roberts, Q.C., Lieutenant-Governor

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion 1, Mr. Speaker. I move that the message, together with the amount, be referred to a Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that the message, together with the amount, be referred to a Committee of Supply.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Bill 51, 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, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you can see, Bill 51, Mr. Chair, looks for, basically, supplementary supply in the amount of $664,400. This is in keeping with trying to be upfront and put forward debate on financial matters of the Province. Essentially, what this amount works out to be, of that $664,400 - I just want to make sure, for Hansard purposes and for future considerations, as my good friend, the Leader of the Opposition would say, that we had to be absolutely correct in the use of this. What we are asking to vote upon tonight, or to grant, is $664,400. Five hundred ninety-one thousand and seven hundred dollars of this was provided by special warrant for new RCMP officers in the Labrador region. The remainder, or the balance, of that $664,400 deals with search and rescue activities, that will be 100 per cent rebated and funded by the federal government.

That is the explanation. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Province, on the fifteenth of November, I believe, issued a news release associated with this, what we are bringing at the first possible opportunity. A special warrant had to be issued to deal with a significant public issue, as we saw it as government, particularly in Labrador, and then to the first opportunity to bring this to the House through a supplementary supply bill.

Mr. Chair, I will be happy to answer any questions, myself or the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, with respect to Bill 51.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to respond to Bill 51, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Supply. I wanted to ask the Government House Leader if - we know this is a special warrant and this was not taken care of in the past Budget for 2004-2005. We know this was by way of a special warrant a couple of weeks ago. You talked about how the main thrust of the special warrant would be to look after the hiring of new RCMP officers, mainly for Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: All for Labrador.

MS THISTLE: All for Labrador.

Wasn't there some money there, as well, for the RNC, in that special warrant?

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I stand to be corrected by my colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, but I do believe what I am about to say is factually correct. The balance of that five hundred and some-odd thousand, that was set aside through special warrant to respond to very special and understandably important needs in Labrador. The remaining balance, with respect to the question the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans asked with respect to some money for the RNC, that deals with the search and rescue component that I talked about up front in introducing the bill. That portion of the $664,000, less what was spent on our funding for new RCMP officers in Labrador, is 100 per cent rebatable or refundable from the federal government.

My understanding is that we have to spend the money first and then it will be forthcoming back to us, but where we have expounded the amount of money that is noted in the bill that you have before you, we have to come to the Legislature, through a Supplementary Supply Bill, at the earliest opportunity after issuing a special warrant to seek concurrence of the House.

Directly to your question: Yes, there was some money provided to the RNC with respect to search and rescue, but that money is 100 per cent refundable from the federal government.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls -Buchans.

MS THISTLE: I guess it is a little bit confusing, because your news release of March 30, 2004, indicated that Budget 2004 had made a provision for four RCMP officers for Labrador, so is this in addition to the four officers that were already indicated in this past budget?

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

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Chairman, in last year's budget there was provision made for four RCMP officers in Labrador. This Supplementary Supply deals with an addition $591,000, or $591,000 of the amount was for an additional seven RCMP officers for Labrador. Two of them were deployed to Sheshatshiu. Of the other five, one will be a forensics expert stationed in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, one will be a provost for the purpose of prisoner escorts, two will be highway traffic control, and the other one will be a backup for the communities in Coastal Labrador, including Postville. So, there are seven new, four in the last budget, for a total of eleven. For this seven, the amount was $591,700. The balance of the funds has to do with monies provided for search and rescue. The Province expends the monies, and the monies are 100 per cent reimbursed by the Government of Canada.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What I am hearing from the Minister of Justice is that, in addition to the four indicated in the current budget, there were an additional seven allotted for Labrador, bringing a total of eleven new RCMP officers for Labrador. Is that correct?

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes, it is, a total of eleven RCMP officers for Labrador; four in the Budget and an additional seven financed through the Supplementary Supply Bill.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think this would be an ideal time for me to ask questions concerning - number one would be the equalization adjustments. Can someone from government respond and let me know what the equalization adjustments are going to be this year?

I would also like to know at this time: What increases can we expect from the increase in oil prices this year? Also, how much money can we expect to receive from the Health Accord for this fiscal year?

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, I say to the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans. These are obviously issues that fall outside the Committee, but I will endeavour to answer them to the best of my ability.

Number one, the Minister of Finance, for the last several days, has been dealing with the issues surrounding the Atlantic Accord. Associated with that - he had made, I guess, a commitment in terms of the time frame that he would be giving an update on the financial picture of the Province some time this week. That was obviously interrupted because of the discussions that are continuing with respect to the Atlantic Accord.

It is my understanding, after having a discussion with the Minister of Finance today, there is a commitment by government to make a mid-year financial statement before this House, when this Assembly is in session, before we close. That will potentially take place next week, I say to the member.

With respect to the adjustments in equalization, any extra monies associated with oil royalties as it relates to the rising costs in terms of how much a barrel of oil is worth compared to what it was when we gave our budget, how much money with respect to health care, all of those issues related to that will be made abundantly clear by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board then.

These are not answers that I can give you tonight. If I was in a position to give them to you, I would have no hesitation in doing so, but the Minister of Finance has made a commitment to the people of the Province, to every member in the House, to yourself, in your capacity as critic, to provide a mid-year financial update in which he will be dealing with those issues and many, many more. That is the answer that we have before you, and that is the only answer that I am in a position to be able to give you tonight on those issues.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I hope we do get that financial update. It has been pushed out week after week now, ever since October. We are almost into closing for this fall session, and still the people of the Province do not know where this government stands financially.

I would also like to ask the government: The money for settling the VON strike, was that from new funds that you are going to expend before the end of March? Was it money that was already in the budget in the Department of Health and Community Services? If it was, would you indicate what line of the budget it was, or if you intend to actually look for a special warrant for that amount, or will it be a part of Supply that we can expect to see turn up in some other part of the budget, or will it be a transfer from some other category? I would like to hear your response on that one.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If we had to issue a special warrant for that particular initiative by government, we would be dealing with it tonight, or some previous night or some future night in this sitting, through a Supplementary Supply Bill. I will tell the member we have no intention of doing that, because that came from existing departmental funds.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think it is quite clear to anyone watching this session tonight that there was no provision in the Department of Health budget for funding to settle a VON strike. It was not anticipated; nor was it looked at and made part of the budget for Health and Community Services.

I would like to ask the government, whoever wants to respond for the government: In what area of the budget of the Health and Community Services Department was that money found?

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I cannot give you the detailed line item tonight in terms of where the money came from within the existing departmental budget.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: One second now, I say to the Leader of the Opposition.

I can make a commitment to the member that I will find out and I will bring her the answer as soon as I can, right here in the House.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will certainly hold the Government House Leader to that commitment; because, as we have seen in the past couple of weeks with continuous questioning of the Minister of Health and Community Services, he was reluctant to give that information, but I am certain, after a parlay over the weekend, they will have some kind of an answer for me on Monday. They have committed to it and let's see if they will deliver on it.

I also want to ask the Government House Leader, or whoever is speaking for government, I am looking at the loss of jobs in both Harbour Breton and Fortune, as we have heard in the news and right here in this House over the past couple of weeks: What is your prediction of what it will cost government in the short term, to the end of March, to provide some situation, some funding to those communities, in particular Harbour Breton, to get by until the end of March, until you are in a position to look at a long-term plan for the community of Harbour Breton?

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, along with the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, as I understand it, and the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, are working on all of that right now. The answer you are seeking is not one that can be provided to you or anybody else today, but it is a work in progress. There is a commitment by government and the line departments in government to do whatever we can in the context that you have asked, the question that you have asked. As soon as that is worked out, we will be making it available.

The answer to your question - to everybody - it is not that we are trying to be evasive tonight, because the work is not finished. It is a work in progress and the departments within government that would be associated and responsible for trying to put together a response because of an extraordinary situation for our fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the Town of Harbour Breton, government is working on that right now.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will only ask one more question at this stage and I will ask more later on.

Lately on the news we have heard of some communities in our Province that do not have the protection of fire services. Has government looked at that matter of providing protection? Some communities now are actually not able to get insurance on their properties. Will government be looking at that as a way to assist communities that are not able to provide their own fire protection to their residents. Naturally, that will be a cost. Will this be looked at as some of the new revenues that are coming forward before the end of March?

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't want to preempt what the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board will get into with his mid-year financial statement. I say that simply because the member has referenced new revenues. We will just have to wait and see what the financial picture is and what the Minister of Finance has to say with respect to that.

As a former President of Treasury Board responsible for administering how government money is spent and ensuring it is spent in the right places, she would understand, I would think, and acknowledge that there are fluctuations in any budget year. That is why it is called the Budget Estimate because it is government's best estimate.

With respect to the peculiar and particular issue she has raised with respect to regional fire services and some communities not being able to get it, I believe the most recent example was the one on the Port au Port Peninsula with respect to the communities of Lourdes and Mainland, if I am not mistaken. It is a pretty serious and significant issue when you are living in a community where, in the case of fire, an adjacent community, because of financial reasons, is not able to respond. This is a situation that the former government had to look at and deal with. This is one where I know the work the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is doing with respect to this issue.

The member has asked: Are we looking at it? Yes, we are. We are looking at it very seriously. The minister, at the appropriate time, will talk about that issue. I guess, what is most important for government right now is to try to get our arms around all of the issues associated with any community that finds itself in that situation, and put in place, I guess, a strategy that will potentially deal with that, with the hope and intention that no one would find themselves in a situation where fire protection services would not be available. It is not easy and I know members opposite appreciate that.

The short answer to your question is, yes, we are dealing with it and the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is on top of that issue, as we speak.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to raise a couple of issues as we prepare to pass this particular supplementary supply bill in committee because I do - again, this is one of the areas where I do commend the government for exactly what they are going, which is to take what was deemed to be an issue appropriate for special warrant and at the first opportunity bring it as a supplementary supply bill in the Legislature. It is something, as a matter of fact, I believe Auditor Generals and others have been asking for and suggesting as the proper and right approach for years. It is something that the government committed to in its Blue Book and it is a commitment they are keeping, and I applaud and commend that.

A couple of things with respect to it though. Again, just for clarification. So this process with respect to the seven additional police officers in Labrador - I would like to ask the Minister of Justice to respond to it. This process, because there are now eleven additional RCMP officers serving Labrador since the budget last year, four that were announced in the budget, provided for in the budget, and seven that are now being authorized by the House, after the fact, as a result of this bill. But, it is, in fact, a measure of openness, transparency and accountability. That is to be applauded, in terms of the process, but it began with a special warrant.

Again, my understanding of the special warrant is that a special warrant - again, this new government said they would not issue special warrants. They would not use the process at all, but now they issued one and they are now having it followed up with a more accountable and open process in the House. The general nature of it, as I understand it, and Auditor Generals in the past - and I say that because there is one of them in the Legislature - wrote line in reports for year after year after year saying there were too many special warrants used and that the government exercised poor judgement; because I do believe that whether the warrant is issued or not is a matter of a judgement call by the government as to whether something that was not anticipated in the budget and is now either urgent or emergent has arisen to cause the expenditure of the extra money.

So, in the Budget, the government anticipated there was going to be a need for more policing in Labrador and funded four additional positions. The question I would like to ask of the Minister of Justice: What is it that happened between April 1 and some time a couple of months ago when this warrant was issued, that convinced the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador that the circumstance that they already anticipated in Labrador which required more policing had gotten so out of hand, so out of control, was so much a measure of an emergency or of an urgent nature that a special warrant required seven additional officers to be funded and placed right away? Because I think the Auditor General, our current Auditor General, will probably be like former Auditor Generals - or is it Auditors General? In any event, some of the English majors will correct me on that. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs will correct me on that. So the issue is, the current Auditor General will, I am sure, because there was a special warrant issued. Now, it has been followed up by the appropriate open and accountable procedure but the judgement, again, was made that something extraordinary happened.

Could the Minister of Justice enlighten us to what it is that came to the attention of the government that was so startling and so different from the anticipation in the Budget that you were going to need more policing anyway, to require this extraordinary expenditure of $600,000 for police? I understand that search and rescue had to be dealt with. If someone gets lost you have to go find them. It costs money; it is reimbursable. I fully concur with that. So, what was the urgent and emergent nature, because the government had already been anticipating some extra need for policing? What is it that convinced them that it should go from four to seven and that it could not wait for another budget?

AN HON. MEMBER: Four to eleven.

MR. GRIMES: Four to eleven, I am sorry.

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

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

I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. It is certainly a fair question.

In the Budget of last year we spoke to the RCMP about their needs, about the needs they have in Labrador, and it was determined when we were doing the Budget process that four additional officers would be placed in Labrador. Unfortunately, one thing that happened was that there was a change. For occupational health and safety reasons the RCMP announced that they would no longer maintain one person detachments in Newfoundland and Labrador. That meant the four officers who were intended for the detachment in Sheshatshiu, instead of putting four in Sheshatshiu, the RCMP had to deploy two of those four officers - instead of going to Sheshatshiu - to Makkovik and Rigolet.

Then what happened after, Mr. Chairman, there was a riot in Sheshatshiu. The RCMP officers were unable to control the riot, initially. They were driven out. There was damage done to RCMP vehicles. We were told there was a serious situation there. There were threats. The band council office was taken over. It took a while for the police to get control of the situation. As a result of that, the Premier had discussions with the new Chief, Anastasia Qupee. There was indiction from her, and band council members, that there was a serious situation there; it was urgent that it be dealt with right away. As a result of that, we met with the RCMP. We asked what resources they would need to take care of the situation. They told us they needed these seven officers, and knowing full well that the decision we made would be questioned in this House to determine whether or not an emergency did exist, we were certainly satisfied that the situation did amount to an emergency. That is why we made the decision we did.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate that answer and recall the unfortunate circumstances that were described, I think which were to the shocking dismay of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, both on the Island and in Labrador. To see an appropriate and a proper response by the government, again, I commend them for that.

Just one other thing for clarification, Mr. Chairman, because the intention is not to delay this but to pass this and have it authorized appropriately. There is no question, I think just for clarification - and maybe the Government House Leader might want to answer this. When the process that we are now following is used, which is a special warrant being followed up by a supplementary supply bill - to make sure that everybody understands it fully because there are many new members still in this House - that there is no doubt that we are authorizing the expenditures of funds which were not anticipated in the Budget in the year that we are now continuing on and, therefore, either the government has some confidence that they have some new money to spend to meet what they are now committing to, or they are willing to incur a higher deficit to meet this emergency and, in fact, meeting the emergency.

If there is no new money at all, just to put it in that context - if there were no new money, the crisis which was described, in the government's opinion that would warrant even having a bigger deficit by this $660,000 because it needed to be dealt with and could not wait for another budget. I think everyone in the Legislature knows that this government anticipates an improved revenue position, which the Finance Minister will update us on before the House closes. So it will be easily offset and probably will not cause a larger deficit. As a matter of fact, I would predict tonight that there is going to be a very little cash deficit by the end of this year because of circumstances of the benevolence of the Government of Canada and some other circumstances, like a high Canadian dollar, which is going to take in the range of $100 million off the interest payments on our debt; those kinds of things, which are not actions that this government, themselves, implemented; extra taxation on high gasoline prices because I am sure this government would have wanted the price of gasoline to stay down around eighty-eight, eighty-seven or eighty-six cents instead of being at a dollar for most of the summer. They were collecting 15 per cent on a dollar instead of 15 per cent on ninety cents, which they anticipated in the Budget. So they have a lot of extra money coming in. I am sure the Finance Minister will be very pleased to inform us of those things in the not too distant future.

Again I say, we know - because as I have said before, we don't ask questions as the Opposition unless we know the answer - we know there is considerable new revenue already in the hands of this government, that the Finance Minister will confirm. There is no risk in doing this special warrant in terms of the fiscal position, and certainly no particular risk in the possibility of running a greater deficit because of it.

The point I am trying to make is this, Mr. Chairman, even if there was no sign of any new money, then what the government has judged by doing this is that the issue and circumstance that the Justice Minister just described needed to be attended to on an urgent and emergent fashion, even if it meant having a larger deficit. As long as we all understand that is the process we have gone through and we are going to authorize, we will find out from the Finance Minister - I see the Member for St. John's Centre is shaking his head in denial, Mr. Chairman, which means that he is saying to this House, if there was no new money, and this is an important point to make because we are going to see this process followed again, if there was no new money and if that crisis still existed, which is did, by the way, and if he had a vote on it, he would not be voting for this, if it was going to increase the deficit. That is what he was just saying. That is what I just saw him say, Mr. Chairman, in this Legislature.

I am sure that the people of Labrador and the people involved in communities like Sheshatshiu and on the North Coast who are going to get some adequate policing for a change, will be disappointed to know that is the attitude of a member from the centre of St. John's, that he would only support meeting the adequate and necessary and emergent and urgent policing needs in Labrador if it was not going to increase the deficit. That is a sad commentary, Mr. Chairman, but I am not here to make a big debate or a big point over that. I always look for reaction from members to see what their true feelings are. I always like to put it on the record, Mr. Chairman, because they are free to stand in their places and refute it, if I have misrepresented what I just saw happen in this Legislature, and I will be glad to have it happen.

Mr. Chairman, let me say this, it was deemed to be an emergency, a crisis did exist, it was deemed to be so important that it had to be dealt with by the government now, at the time that it happened which was a couple of months ago, and we are now going to verify it and ratify it appropriately through this process.

I will finish by saying, it is clear that some members of that government, like the Member for St. John's Centre, found it easy to support this because they know there is more money. They might have found it more difficult to support it if they were not sure there was more money.

Let me make this comment, Mr. Chairman, as I finish by saying that I support this process. I support this process and I applaud the government for what they have done in Labrador and the process they are going through right now to ratify it openly and accountably in the Legislature. I applaud both things, I say to the Minister of Justice and to the Government House Leader and to the Chairman. I applaud both actions wholeheartedly, and I think it is clear that there is new money here. There is no confusion, I do not think, here, like there was, unfortunately, with the Victorian Order of Nurses in Corner Brook, and I say this just to make the political point. This is a political point. With respect to the settlement of the strike in Corner Brook for the Victorian Order of Nurses, we had a strike that lasted for a month, with the Minister of Health at the time saying repeatedly in the public that there is no extra money here. There is no money here in the Department of Health to give you people to settle that strike. The Minister of Justice knows that. He is a sitting member for a riding in Corner Brook, where the strike was occurring. The Premier knows that. He is a sitting member in a riding in Corner Brook where the strike was occurring. So, the standard line from the government that the then Minister of Health put forward publicly for a full month was: We do not have any extra money available and we cannot make a contribution to the Victorian Order of Nurses to settle this strike.

Then, when it suddenly and mysteriously appeared, the Premier of the Province - Mr. Chairman, I need to say this - when he explained, on the morning that his golf tournament was starting, that there was no longer a strike and that it was solved, said: I am glad to be able to do this because we just got some new money from the Health Accord and now we can settle the health-related issue.

That is exactly what the Premier of the Province said in Corner Brook: I am glad to inform you that I just came back from the Health Accord meetings. We know we have some new money, and therefore we can now solve this VON strike in Corner Brook.

Now, everybody knows what happened since. A Minister of Health resigned over that, because a Minister of Health was hung out to dry for a month, saying: We have no money.

No sooner did the Premier say we have some new money and now I can settle the strike - not the Minister of Health but I, personally, can settle the strike - the very next day -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the Leader of the Opposition that his time has expired.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, I can sit and rise again, or someone can give me leave for just a minute to finish.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, just to conclude and finish that point, again let me say that I am applauding the government for what they are doing just now, what we are debating at this moment, but to draw a distinction and a comparison between that and what happened with the Victorian Order of Nurses.

The very next day, the Acting Minister of Health, who is the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs, was out saying: Oh, no, no, that wasn't new money. No, no, the Premier must have been wrong yesterday. We didn't settle that because we had new money. That was already in the Budget.

We heard the Government House Leader say that line again tonight. That wasn't because we had new money. That was already in the Budget. Well, funny thing, it wasn't in the Budget for the full month before that. It could not be found for a full month and, all of a sudden, it appeared out of the blue and a minister resigned over it. A long-standing, outstanding deputy minister was involuntarily dismissed because of it, and the rest is history, Mr. Chairman.

I say, let's be consistent. Let's do the kinds of things that we are doing right now. Let's do it by the process, and let's see the government being applauded, like I am doing, for things that they do right, like dealing with a policing issue in Labrador that should be dealt with, and doing it in an accountable and open fashion like we are doing tonight.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, I can only say I am glad he applauded us, after listening to that speech. I mean, if anybody -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Can you imagine? Here is what the bill is about. The bill is about this government responding to an emergency situation in Labrador by putting seven new RCMP officers in there for the people in Labrador when they needed it. It is about responding to a search and rescue emergency and putting the money in place. Whether we had it or not, we intended to do it because an emergency existed, I say to the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: It is about a government being accountable, that we did it outside of the Budget that we announced. We had the power to do it through a special warrant because an emergency existed. We did it and, at the first possible opportunity, we tabled a bill in the House to deal with it.

Now, I cannot let some of the comments stand by the Leader of the Opposition, because he is a pro at it. He will pick somebody out on this side of the House. They may be smiling to their colleague next to them, and he will say - in this case he picked out the Member for St. John's Centre - here is what he said: Oh, I see him smiling now. I am sure the people in Sheshatshiu appreciate that.

As if that had anything to do with the debate. Nothing! It has to do with political posturing and trying to start a row in the Legislature. Now, if that is the type of politics you want to play, go ahead; but, from here on in, that is not going to be left unchecked by me or anybody else in the Legislature, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: No more. He did it the other night to the Member for Bonavista North, talking about the fishery. He said the Member for Bonavista North said something in The Beacon; knowingly, he did not say a word in The Beacon about the issue that he raised.

When that sort of posturing goes on, no matter what time of day in the Legislature, or when it is, that is it, we are going to put that stuff in check; because all it is, is a silly little game to the Leader of the Opposition. Well, what we are up to is not a silly little game. What we are doing is trying to do the people's business here. Not only that, he does it all the time. Now look at him laughing, but I am not going to get into that. He does it with me all the time. He did it with me just then. He has done it with me, or attempted to do it with me, for twelve years, since I have been sitting here. For the first five or six years I was here, I was his critic for those four or five or six years. He just said then, trying to put words in your mouth, twist it a little bit here, twist it a little bit there, leaving impressions that are knowingly false. He is what he just said. He said: The Government House Leader said that there was no new money in the health budget but they found the money for the VON, but there wasn't money there the month before it was settled.

The Government House Leader did not say that. No, I did not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, Sir, I did not. Just because you think I did does not mean I did, and I did not. I answered a question honestly and frankly to his colleague and even - Mr. Chairman, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans asked a legitimate question. I conferred with my colleague and I gave an honest and frank answer.

With respect to gas prices - hear what he said about gas prices: Got lots of new revenue, because we are happy about gas prices being at ninety-nine cents. Now, just imagine. My own view? I would love for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to be able to refine their own gas and oil here so they can pull up to a pump and pay less than 10 cents for it, but that is not the world we live in at the moment; but to leave a suggestion hanging out there that the government of the day is somewhat happy because gas prices are higher and we are happy because we are going to get more revenue, I mean, come on, it is absolutely scandalous and ridiculous.

Now, if that is the type of bait that you want to throw there, then fair enough, throw it out there, but we will be here a long time debating it because that sort of nonsense is not going to be tolerated, whether it is at 9:14 in the night or 9:14 in the morning, any more from you, Sir.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am surprised that the Government House Leader is taking such an affront to my earnest attempts to have a serious debate.

Mr. Chairman, let me say this: The Member for Bonavista North, with respect to the Dunne Report that we were speaking about the other night, he was sitting in his seat when I mentioned what he said in The Beacon and, in case the Government House Leader does not know, I chatted with him -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, the Government House Leader can stand again afterwards.

I chatted with him when we left the Legislature that evening and I said: Mr. Member, I will get you a copy of The Beacon, where you talked about, you are proud of this licensing board, this independent arm's-length licensing board, because it reflects the Dunne commission recommendation, and I will provide it for you. He said, that is pretty interesting but that is not all that I said in the article. He was in the Legislature the same night, by the way.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: I am only reflecting that the member, I say to the Government House Leader, was in the House and if he took some offence to what I said, I am sure he is capable of standing on his own two feet and defending himself, just like the Member for St. John's Centre this evening, sitting in his place - I even invited him, if he thought there was something seriously or terribly wrong with what I had just said, to stand in debate and address it. I guess the Government House Leader takes it as his responsibility to protect all of the members. That is a laudable goal and a laudable objective, but I would suggest to the members that if they have a problem with what somebody is saying, because I am willing to say it and put it on the public record, Mr. Chairman, and if they have a problem with it they should stand up. If they don't want that to stand on the public record, they should stand up and make the correction in the Legislature for themselves. They should stand up and make the correction for themselves.

Let me mention, Mr. Chairman, the two things I did just mention about this debate. I did and have consistently in this debate, in the last ten minutes, applauded this government for doing the right thing, both in terms of addressing the policing issue - I think if we check Hansard in the next few days this will probably be the third or fourth time I have said it. I am saying they did the right thing. The Minister of Justice nodded then and he is nodding now. They did the right thing in addressing a policing issue in Labrador that needed urgent and emergent attention. The way to do it, because there was no money in the Budget for it, rather than wait, was to issue a special warrant, which the government did. Then, the way to be open and transparent and accountable about it is to bring it to the Legislature in a supplementary supply bill, so that we can ask questions like we have tonight, get the information, and have it approved in an open and public fashion, which we are doing. For the third or fourth time, Mr. Chairman, let the public record show that I applaud the government in both cases, for taking the policing action and for following up with this action in the spirit of openness, transparency and accountability.

I can tell the Government House Leader for a fact, that when the question was asked about Corner Brook and about settling the VON, he said, there is no special warrant here and there won't be a supplementary supply bill, because we didn't have to go and get extra money. It was money that was just shifted that was already in the Budget. It wasn't new money. Now, I used my own words to say what he said, because I didn't know verbatim what he said. What he said was that unlike this bill we are doing, the money for this wasn't in the Justice Department. The money for this policing was not there. It couldn't be transferred from one heading to another because it did not exist. A special warrant provided it to the department so they could meet the commitment they had made.

The Government House Leader, when asked about the VON settlement, said: You will not see this process followed for Corner Brook because we did not have to go and put new money into the department. The money was already in the department somewhere. The Government House Leader is saying they found enough in the department to settle the strike and pay for the palliative care study.

The only point I was making, Mr. Chairman, was: Why is it that it could be found a month after the strike started, but for thirty days - twenty-seven or twenty-eight or twenty-nine days - the former Minister of Health was hung out to dry in the public saying: I'm sorry, we cannot get involved in settling this strike because there is no money in my department for that.

I said when I started, Mr. Chairman, that this would be a bit political; that whole reference of drawing comparisons between the VON and this issue would be a bit political. It was very political, a minister resigned over it. A minister left the Cabinet over it. A deputy minister involuntarily, as I know, left the public service. I do not believe she resigned voluntarily, and will continue to ask questions about severance and those issues, and how much it cost.

The other issue that I said with respect to the Member for St. John's Centre - not that I am trying to pick on anybody. I did say I watch people for reactions because I like to learn what they really truly believe. I had made the point that it was easy for the government probably to make this decision because they knew - I know the Cabinet ministers knew for sure - that it was not going to cause an extra deficit because they had money from things like gasoline taxes and less money they are going to pay out. They know that already. The Finance Minister has not confirmed it to the rest of the Province yet, but they know that the fiscal circumstance is markedly improved for this government compared to Budget Day. They know that already and we will be told some time.

What I said - and what the Member for St. John's Centre reacted to - was that what we should understand when we are going through this process is that when you issue a special warrant, that if you deem it to be an emergency or an urgent circumstance you have to be willing to fix it, even if it means you might have a larger deficit. When I said: even if you might have a larger deficit; he was saying: No, I don't think so. That is all I put on the public record, was that my understanding of his reaction - because there was no one sitting next to him. He was not speaking to anybody. He was paying attention to what I was saying. He was looking at me - and he is shaking his head again as if now that is not what he meant. I invited him, I said: Now, if I am misrepresenting what you are saying - Mr. Chairman, he is in the House. He is free to stand on his feet and clarify. I do not believe any of what I said warranted the blistering attack that I was then subjected to by the Government House Leader. I was floored by it, taken aback. It almost has me to the point where I am half hesitant to rise in the Legislature again. I am almost going to give up my right to free speech.

Mr. Chairman, in a matter of expediency in trying to move it forward, I am satisfied that I have been given ample opportunity to say what I wanted to say about this particular supply bill. I will finish for the fifth or sixth time by saying: I commend the government and the Minister of Justice for taking the action with respect to policing in Labrador and I commend the government for following the process of having it ratified here tonight. I do not think I can be any clearer than that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Resolution

"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, 2005, the sum of $664,400."

CHAIR: Shall the Resolution carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The Resolution is carried.

On motion, Resolution carried.

CLERK: Clauses 1 and 2.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 and 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 and 2 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 and 2 carried.

CLERK: The Schedule.

CHAIR: Shall the Schedule carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The schedule is 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'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, the 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, 2005, 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'.

The preamble is carried.

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, 2005 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'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 51 carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 51 is carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: 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 (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matter to them referred and have directed me to report that they have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of Supply reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred, 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. It is moved and seconded that this resolution be now read a first time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A Resolution: 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, 2005, the sum of $664,400.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

On motion, resolution read a second time.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I move that the Supplementary Supply Bill be now read a first time, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader 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, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. ( Bill 51)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader 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, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," carried. (Bill 51)

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

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, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 51)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the Supplementary Supply Bill, Bill 51, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said Bill 51 be now read a second time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

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, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 51)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the Supplementary Supply Bill, Bill 51, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said Bill 51 be now read a third time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

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, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 51)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act 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, 2005 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 51)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move second reading of Bill 63, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 63, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act to Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991." (Bill 63)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, I will just read the Explanatory Note and I will elaborate for a few minutes after. It says, "This Bill would provide that those Presidents of the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurse's Union who are members of the Public Service Pension Plan continue to participate in the Public Service Pension Plan for the duration of their term as president if, prior to election as president, the incumbent was already a member fo the Public Service Pension Plan."

Essentially, what we are correcting here is long overdue in government's mind. The President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union, if they were in the Public Service Pension Plan as a nurse, and participating in that plan prior to getting elected as president - right now, as the pension plan regulations exist, upon becoming elected as president, their contributions cannot continue. Now, that is the not same for the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association. It is not the same for the President of the Newfoundland Association of Public Employees, and it begs the question: Why isn't it the same for the president of a pretty significant union in the Province?

What we are attempting to do here is to correct, I think, something that should have been corrected some time ago, to ensure that, as a member, or you get elected as a president of a union, that you do not lose the benefit by offering yourself up to serve, that you can continue to make your contributions, as others do in other unions, into the pension plan so that, in terms of putting yourself out there, in terms of serving your membership in an extraordinary fashion, I might add, no matter what agreements or disagreements governments and unions may have, I think we all acknowledge that, you know, to be elected the head of a union is an extraordinary sort of job to take upon yourself. It is by no means a nine to five job or an eight-thirty to four-thirty job. It is an every day job, twenty-four-seven, I would suggest to many. So, what we are attempting to do here, Mr. Speaker, is to correct what we believe is an anomaly and to set something right that should have been set right some time ago.

With that, I will sit down and let others participate in the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to speak to Bill 63, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991.

Actually, there was a Cabinet paper that came to Cabinet when I was a former Cabinet minister, and at that point you could almost call this the Debbie Forward bill because it was pointed out to us at that particular time, as the Government House Leader just described, that once an individual became President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union they were not able to participate in the Public Service Pension Plan.

That had gone through as a process of the former Administration, and I must say that I am totally in agreement with this bill. It needs to be corrected, and this bill will actually do that.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say a few words on this legislation. I think it is important to ensure that people who are in the public service and are able to, as a result, participate in the Public Service Pension Plan, can continue to do so if they are serving their colleagues or their fellow employees in the role as president of the union. In this case the Nurses' Union, because of the size of the organization and the responsibilities, has a full-time president, as does NAPE, and I think it is important that this person, the person in that role, be allowed to continue to participate in the pension plan. This is by virtue of making contributions from their salary, Mr. Speaker. It is not a special favour that is being done here, but is merely to allow an employee, for the purpose of their pension, to continue to be considered an employee for the purpose of making contributions, through the act.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate that we pass this legislation.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We certainly have no difficulty with the intentions of this particular Bill 63. I guess the one question we would ask, for clarification sake, though, it says in the very last sentence there, "(1.1) Paragraph (1)(f.1) shall be considered to have come into force on March 28, 1996."

For clarification purposes, we are doing this to be fair to Presidents of the Newfoundland and Labrador nurses' association who fall into this category. I am just wondering why that particular start date. I can understand and appreciate that it looks after the current President of the association, but I am just wondering: What about the impact, or non-impact, it has on former Presidents of the Newfoundland and Labrador nurses' association? For example, a member of this House, the hon. Joan Aylward, at one point, who was a minister here, was also President of the Newfoundland and Labrador nurses' association. She got into politics in 1996. I am just wondering, if we are doing it to be fair to the current person, and we are making it retroactive to when that person, which I understand is when Ms Forward went in there, in 1996, if that is the case, are we are missing anybody here? I just ask that for information sake. I just thought about the circumstance of Minister Aylward, and I am sure there must be others.

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

If the hon. the minister speaks now, he will close the debate on second reading.

MR. E. BYRNE: I appreciate the point raised by the member. It was government's intention to deal with the current person who is there now, and everyone else on a go-forward basis. If we get into looking back beyond the current person who was in the job on a go-forward basis, what is the criteria by which we stop? Do we stop with the person before that, or three presidents before that, or four or five or six?

It was the view of government that, if we were going to correct this anomaly - and I think the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans said that, when she was in Cabinet, a paper came through and it was called the Debbie Forward bill. Yes, Debbie Forward, just to have a pun on her last name, and for everyone forward after that, I guess, but that is the reason that we used. She is the current President of the Nurses' Union. If we are going to correct it, it must be corrected for her. In order to correct it for her, it had to be corrected when she became the President of the Nurses' Union, and it was from that point of view that government took the decision, and then for every president who would come after her in that capacity.

That is the reason, Mr. Speaker, that it is the last paragraph which the Opposition House Leader raised which would put it back, considered to have come into force, in effect, in 1996, which would come into force, in effect, when Ms Forward became the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said Bill 63, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 63)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the whole House? Now?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 63)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call now second reading of a bill, The House of Assembly Act. (Bill 65)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 65, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The House of Assembly Act." (Bill 65)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this piece of legislation. It should be put forward by myself and, actually, it should read the Opposition House Leader as well, because this was, I guess, a paper that came forward emanating from the Internal Economy Commission Act, or the Internal Economy Commission.

Many Legislatures across the country - I believe your Honour gave a presentation at a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference this summer on parliamentary precincts and discovered there were many jurisdictions within the country where parliamentary precinct is defined. That may not seem like it is important, but it is important, and there are a number of reasons why it is important. First of all, parliamentary precinct is our space. It is the Members of the House of Assembly's space. Within the confines of that precinct, the law of that precinct is the Speaker of the House, and members should not be impeded or intruded in coming and going into the precinct of the House. Members should not be interfered with, or intruded with, or obstructed in any way in doing the business of the people.

I believe I am correct in saying that we have never really, in this Province, had a definition that defined, as a matter of law, what the precinct of the House of Assembly was, whether that was in the old Colonial Building, whether it was upstairs in the old Legislature, or whether it was in this one. To be frank, Mr. Speaker, it is something, really, that we should be ashamed of, to be honest with you, because there are situations that occur from time to time where the precincts of the House must be clearly defined, need to be clearly defined, as members, so that we can go about our work, and should situations arise that - every member knows that within the precincts of the House, and what is defined as within the precincts of the House, the business of a member cannot and must not be interfered with, obstructed, or impeded in any way.

I am pleased to put this bill forward for consideration.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to make a few comments on Bill 65.

I would certainly concur with the Government House Leader, that this is needed, and we would certainly be very supportive of it. We had incidents within the precincts of this House in the very recent past with, again, safety issues, concerns about the property and so on, but most importantly the ability for members here to be able to do their job. That is what this is all about. This is not about barring people from the people's House. The forty-eight people who operate within here, with your Speaker here, come here to do a job. There may be all kinds of disagreements that we have with each other. There may be protests that we can all have - and I am all in favour of protests, and I am all in favour of the right to speak, and I am all in favour of the right to free speech, but you cannot always allow those rights to infringe upon other rights.

I think if we get into allowing other people's protests to infringe upon the most sacred right of all, which is this House of supposed democracy, we have a problem. We saw here in the recent past where that could have become an issue, so I am all in favour of this. I think it is needed, and we will not see any repeat of what happened in the recent past, so we will be fully, totally, absolutely, supportive of Bill 65.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I support the bill, too, but I am going to approach it from a slightly different point of view. What is very important to me, Mr. Speaker, is that the House of Assembly have control over its own security. I believe that is what this bill is about, that the Speaker of the House is in charge of the House and the precincts of the House. What happened during the most recent strike was that members of the House were unable to come and go to the House, not because of the Speaker but because of other security measures taken by government, in its capacity as government, preventing the free flow of members of the House to come to the House of Assembly, and, not only that, affecting the Speaker's role in determining who could come and go to the House of Assembly, and when that could happen.

We have had a number of instances over the last number of years, particularly during strikes. I recall when this government was not in power, and the previous government was. There was a nurses' strike and there were fifty or sixty - I do not know if they were heavily armed or not, but they were certainly in riot gear; they probably were heavily armed - fifty or sixty police officers down in the Treasury Board wing of this building, with 300 or 400 nurses in the lobby. A lot of concern, Mr. Speaker. Then, the next night, people outside the building and police officers inside the building. I was very concerned that what was happening was something very different than the House of Assembly having control over what goes on in the House and the precincts of the House. We do need some separation between what the House of Assembly stands for and does and is.

My colleague, the Opposition House Leader, talked about freedom of speech. Yes, this is, in part, what the House of Assembly is about, freedom of speech, but it is also a separate branch of our government. It is the legislative branch, which is under control of the Speaker of the House of Assembly and, therefore, there must be some definition about what the House of Assembly is.

In the Parliament of Canada, the House of Commons parliamentary precincts include all the offices of the members. I would assume that when a definition is being made - and I should say for those who may be watching and do not know, we do not sit on the Internal Economy Commission, so have no participation in the previous discussions leading up to this nor will be participating, unless we are invited, in defining what the precincts of the House are.

There have been some issues of security with respect to offices of Members of the House of Assembly as well. Some members have offices behind the Speaker's chair on the third floor. Other members are on the fifth floor of this building. So there are other issues that come into play when we are talking about the full precincts of the House; including the Opposition offices on the fifth floor, access to those offices, how one gets to them and back and forth, what the security measures are with respect to those, et cetera. All of which is part of the parliamentary precincts and all of which are subject to parliamentary privilege in fact, with respect to issues such as search and seizure and all of the things that go with the parliamentary procedure.

So, it is important that we have it set straight that not only is this House and the floor of this House part of the parliamentary precincts of the House of Assembly precincts, but so are the offices of the Leader of the Opposition on the fifth floor in this building, which happens to also house other offices on the fifth floor of other departments across the hall and next door, including next me, the Government House Leader with a parliamentary office up there.

It is very important that there be some regulation that clarifies exactly what are the parliamentary precincts so that whatever rules are promulgated by Your Honour, as Speaker in consultation with the Internal Economy Commission, that there will be some certainty and some legal authority - I guess is the more important part - for the rules and for Your Honour's role in terms of ensuring that it is your rules that apply and not someone else's. It is important to know that the rules should apply, but it is important to me, Mr. Speaker, that the rules that apply are the rules of this House and not the rules of somebody else. I think that is something which is recognized in the House of Commons, where the House of Commons, for example, have their own force of - I am not sure exactly whether they are called guards or commissioners. There is a name for them, but they are a separate security group. Now, we have those in the form of commissioners here and others, but Your Honour, and the Internal Economy Commission in their wisdom, will no doubt be devising appropriate rules, regulations and definitions for various things.

It is important that this bill be passed, Mr. Speaker. It is sort of a House of Assembly bill but it is also important for establishing and ensuring that the House of Assembly has its separate constitutional role within our form of government. I do support it and I think we should - I believe there is some willingness to see this pass through all stages this evening to get this put into place.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

If the hon. minister speaks now he closes the debate at second reading.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

This is an important piece of legislation, as I said earlier. I want to say first and foremost, I appreciate the sensitivity of the Opposition House Leader's comments because there was an opportunity to get into a big issue here and he sort of glossed over it. I want to mention it, and it was during the public service strike recently that he was referring to, I believe, when members of the Opposition could not get in through the backdoor. I can only imagine how outraged the members must have been, but equally, so was I. I think members here were because there was - for the record, no matter who we are or what we are in this place here, Mr. Speaker, within the precincts of our House, we have the right to be here. In no way, shape, or form should we ever be obstructed from being here. I do want to say that.

To some of the comments made by my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, he raises a number of interesting points. This is only my personal view - and I want to be clear on this, not government's view. I have always had the personal view that our parliamentary precinct should be the Colonial Building because that really is the seat of government, in my view, when it comes to the Legislature of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is where our 200-and-some-odd year democratic history began, and this is only my personal view, but it would be a great spot for the precincts of the House, completely confined, et cetera. Now, we are beyond that. I know that. It may be a romantic notion on my part but it is one that I will hold forever and a day, I will say to the member opposite.

There are some issues that he raises, which I think as a committee, or as an IEC or as a group of people in the House, that we must deal with, and that deals with: Where are the offices of members, ensuring that they meet that part of the definition? So, I am prepared to work with the member opposite, and other members, too, to have a further look at that because it is an important piece of work that is yet to be done.

But, having said that, I appreciate the comments he has made here. I think that, from the point of view of this particular piece of legislation, I do want to say, again for the record, that it should read my own name, as Government House Leader, and also it should - I do not know if we can do this or if it is too late, Mr. Speaker, but for posterity, I think it would be important that the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile's name should be on the bill as well, because this is a piece of work that we signed off on together representing the Official Opposition and the government on the Internal Economy Commission and bringing forward, decided together, based upon what came from your own office, Mr. Speaker. So if that were possible, I would certainly, for posterity sake, like to see that if it were possible.

Having said that, I do now close second reading on Bill 65.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before the Chair puts the question, is there agreement from the Opposition House Leader that his name would also appear on this bill?

MR. PARSONS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I think agreement has been reached. We will discuss the matter with the Clerk and we shall be happy to do that.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act. (Bill 65)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. E. BYRNE: Later today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 65)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move second reading of Bill 56, amendments to the Internal Economy Commission Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 56, An Act to Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act." (Bill 56)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have kind of debated this piece of legislation in second reading, if I am not mistaken, already. Essentially, this is a companion piece of legislation with Bill 39, the Transparency and Accountability Act.

The reason I want to just put forward for everyone's understanding - both here in the House and if there is any misunderstanding of those who may be watching. The Internal Economy Commission, or the House of Assembly, within its own precincts, is self-governing. It is outside of the arm of government in terms of taking direction. A piece of legislation, in order for it to take force and effect on the House of Assembly, then the Internal Economy Commission, if the legislation is going to be companion-wise or if we are going to try to live up to the spirit and intent of other pieces of legislation, than a separate act must be drafted.

All this bill really does, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that if government is including every - the only entity that government has excluded from its Transparency and Accountability Act is the provincial court system. In order for us to provide or to ensure that the House of Assembly is included in the framework, strategic planning, business planning, et cetera, that is contained in the Transparency and Accountability Act, then we must amend the IEC act or put forward an amendment to the IEC act so that members of the House are also subject to the same standard, I guess, that that piece of legislation will demand of us.

Essentially, Mr. Speaker, we have concluded second reading on the Transparency and Accountability Act. The amendments that are suggested here just bring in-line the House of Assembly with every other government agency, Crown agency, Crown entity or government department.

With that, I will now sit down and look forward to the ensuing debate on this particular piece of legislation.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, on this side of the House, have no difficulty with this act. We will be supportive of it. It is quite clear, of course, under our system the separation between the three branches; the judicial, executive and the legislative ought to be recognized. I guess the members of the House, and certainly the Speaker, guard very jealously the privileges of the legislative branch as you ought to and as we ought to. Notwithstanding any differences we might have on this side of the House regarding the intentions, motivations, application, operation of the Accountability Act - I think it is quite obvious, in the last few times it has been called in this House, that we do have some difficulty with it and we shall continue to have those difficulties and may even end up voting against that particular act.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: That's right.

I certainly would not think that anybody on the other side might get the idea that because we are going to speak and support this particular bill that we have here, it necessarily implies or explicitly states that we are supportive of the principal act, because nothing could be further from the truth.

What we like about this thing is that it carves out from that act, in fact. Instead of saying that we are part of and similar to - you can say here that it might apply, but the bottom line here is this leaves the distinction, the authority and the control within the confines of this House, the Speaker and the Internal Economy Commission, as it should.

I just wanted to preface my remarks, because I would not want someone to misunderstand later on when we come back to the accountability and transparency bill that we might be in favour of that one as well, but this one here we have no problem with.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

School children and political science students are told that our system of government involves a separation of powers, and the three branches of government are considered to be: the executive, the Legislature and the judiciary. The executive in our system being the Cabinet, the legislative being the House of Assembly, and the judiciary obviously speaking for itself; where the executive runs the government departments, the Legislature makes the laws, and the judiciary interprets the laws.

I think this bill is a very good example of maintaining those separation of powers. Whereas the government, in terms of the efficiency or operations of the government, wants to see a plan in process, the fact of the matter is, this Legislature does not report to the government and this legislation recognizes that, that whatever systems are in place by way of planning and reporting, these are internal to the House of Assembly and are under the direction of you, Sir, as Speaker, and that is what this legislation does.

I want to acknowledge and recognize that the minister, the Government House Leader, in bringing forth this amendment to the Internal Economy Commission Act, is clearly giving recognition and showing sensitivity to the importance of the separation of powers under our constitution.

On that basis, Mr. Speaker, I do support the principle of having this legislation separate from the Transparency and Accountability Act. I think it is a measure of the maturity of our government in Newfoundland and Labrador, that the government is able to be sensitive to that. Whether they need to be prodded into understanding that from time to time is another matter, Mr. Speaker. The fact that it is here before this House is obvious evidence that the sensitivity and recognition of the importance of the separation of powers has been recognized and is inherent in this legislation. I commend the government for recognizing that and support the principle behind this bill.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to make these few comments, again to make sure there is no misunderstanding. I fully support the concept, as was pointed out by the two previous speakers, of making sure that everybody in the land understands the distinction between the Legislature and the government. The government, by definition, is the Cabinet and it stays in power because it is supported by other members who believe in what the Cabinet is doing. That is why they are the government. It would be terribly wrong, in a democratic sense, if Mr. Speaker, as the Chair of the Commission that runs the affairs of all forty-seven other members, were subject to a law that says he must report to the Cabinet. I guarantee you one thing, the crowd on this side don't have to report to any Cabinet. We have to report to our constituents and to the people.

The Internal Economy Commission, through the good graces and office of the Speaker, submits an annual report in this Legislature, every year, talking about the activities of the Internal Economy Commission, which is represented by at least two parties - sometimes a third part is invited in for special reasons - and dealing with the other types of things that have to happen, other than to make sure that the forty-eight members, including the Speaker, have their needs as elected members taken care of.

The Legislature is responsible, for example, and has an Auditor General who is an officer of the House, has a Citizens' Representative who is appointed as an officer of the House, has a Child and Youth Representative who is an officer of the House. They come to the IEC, that the Speaker chairs, for Budget approbation and approvals and those kinds of things, put together a plan and make requests. It is probably about as open and transparent as you can get.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Chief Electoral Officer.

MR. GRIMES: The Chief Electoral Officer and the Privacy Commissioner, the part-time Privacy Commissioner. We are going to find out who it is sometime soon, I expect. I do believe before the Legislature closes for Christmas, we are going to proclaim the act. I shouldn't be saying we, the government is going to proclaim the act.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Good. We will support it.

The Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker, reminds us that the government has to move a resolution, together, hoping for support in the House, and we will support it.

Now, if we are going to support the person, it wouldn't be a bad idea some time to tell us who it is, other than to spring it on us by surprise a couple of seconds before we are asked to rubber-stamp it. I know the Government House Leader wouldn't want us to be a rubber stamp, would like for us to know. So the part-time Privacy Commissioner who is going to be appointed, probably before we break for Christmas, if the act is going to be proclaimed - because, if the act is going to be proclaimed before this House rises for a Christmas recess, unless they are going to exempt the provision of the act that says, if you have made a request under Freedom of Information and you are not satisfied, you have the right to appeal, there is not much point in proclaiming that part of the act if you are not going to put in place the person we are going to appeal to; because, I can guarantee you, we are going to put in a few appeals. I have a few now, Mr. Speaker, that I am hoping are going to be dealt with retroactively - freedom of information requests in the last little while that I am not sure we have been treated fairly under the law. We tried to appeal and sent it off, and said, oh, that part of the act is not proclaimed yet, so we will get to that.

Just to finish with this, Mr. Speaker, the separation that has been mentioned by both previous speakers is very important, critically important, in democratic traditions, but again the notion that - and maybe I will ask the Government House Leader for clarification. Is the Internal Economy Commission considered to be a category 1 or a category 2 or a category 3 public entity? That is an important distinction. I saw him waving around a list earlier today that I have not seen yet. He said he has a list. He already knows what they are, even though the bill says that the government is going to decide who fits into what category some time.

MR. E. BYRNE: What category would you have them in?

MR. GRIMES: I would have them in the category that requires the least make-work project for the Speaker, because I have described the all fluff and no stuff as this: If you are category 1, you have to do a strategic plan. Now, they know what they have to do on behalf of us. They have to make sure that the offices that I just described are somehow provided for. The Child and Youth Advocate, the Citizens' Representative, the Electoral Office, the Auditor General, you have to fund those, you have to do something about that, you have to have some money for that, you have to make sure they have the wherewithal to do their jobs. They are officers of this House.

What I am saying is that I hope they are not category 1 and that you are going to make our poor downtrodden Speaker spend his valuable time in the back with the Clerk of the Table - as a former member would call him, the Clerk of the Table - scrambling, burning the midnight oil, like they are doing now, 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock in the night, drawing up a strategic plan when everybody knows already what it is. The plan is: Make sure that the Citizens' Representative has the wherewithal to do his job on behalf of the House of Assembly; make sure that the Child and Youth Advocate has the wherewithal to do his job on behalf of the House of Assembly; make sure that the Electoral Office has the wherewithal to do its job, and the other officers that are here - do not need to spend any time, I hope.

Then a business plan - I hope they are not in whatever category it is that says you have to have the Clerk and the Speaker spend days and weeks and weekends and nights and evenings drawing up a business plan for what they are going to do on behalf of us. I think they hardly need to be in whatever categories have to do an activity plan. I mean, if we do not know, as Legislatures, what the activity plan is for the Speaker who chairs the Internal Economy Commission, we have a big problem.

I understand now that, despite the fact that I described this other bill, Bill 39, as a make-work project - strategic plans, business plans, activity plans, all in the name of so-called accountability - I hope we are not going to subject our Speaker and our Clerk of the Table to any of that. The problem is, they are going to be subject to one level or the other, depending on what category they are put in. Even though I would suggest that we should scrap Bill 39, I know the government is going to pass it. The government is going to pass Bill 39. Then they are going to have to classify the Internal Economy Commission as either category 1 or category 2 or category 3. So, let me make the plea now. I will make the plea to the Government House Leader, on behalf of the members on this side: Please, put the Internal Economy Commission into whatever category creates the least amount of unnecessary work for the Chair and the Clerk, and just let them do their jobs that they have always been doing. Let them be accountable to the people, as they always have been, and let they present their annual report. They do not need a piece of law; they do not need a separate piece of legislation, to present an annual report. They have been doing it. As a matter of fact, we received it just a couple of weeks ago, I think, Mr. Speaker, just a little while ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: The next one is due next week, so that was for the previous year, and he has been very prompt since he has been elected as our Speaker.

I just make those points, more to speak again to the all fluff and no stuff overall bill. Here is another make-work project that we have to do now. Now we have to find a way to change the Internal Economy Commission Act so that it conforms with an act that we do not need in the first place. They made another piece of work that never, ever needed to exist, but I will not belabour it because the government is determined to do it. They love make-work projects. They do not want to develop a strategic rural plan or anything like that. They haven't got time to do that, don't have time to do that, too busy doing this kind of stuff, putting our Speaker and the Clerk through mini-torture for nothing, for no ‘concernable' discernable, conceivable good purpose in Newfoundland and Labrador, other than that maybe when we do the report card on them in the next little while, at the end of the year, we might have to tick off one that they said they would do. They said they were going to bring in an accountability and transparency act, and they are going to be able to say, yes, we brought it in. Now, it will accomplish nothing, but, being a fair marker, like I was when I was grading papers as a teacher, I am going to have to put a tick next to that one saying, yes, they did it. Now, did it accomplish anything? Did it change Newfoundland and Labrador in any positive fashion? No. Did it make our Speaker and the Clerk suffer a bit? Yes, it will. That is unfortunate, but I am glad, at least, they are not going to suffer in the same fashion by having to answer to the Cabinet instead of only having to answer to some good, sensible people in the House of Assembly.

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

If he speaks now, he will close debate at second reading.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to deal with a few of the light comments up front and the serious ones at the latter end. First of all, Your Honour, I have never known anyone who called you poor and downtrodden. Can you imagine? The Speaker of the House of Assembly should never be called poor and downtrodden. The Speaker of the House of Assembly, in terms of his role, is critical and essential to everything that this place is about.

To be honest, the impetus for this piece of legislation came from the Speaker of the House, no more to it than that, and I want to publicly acknowledge that tonight, that the situation from the Speaker and the Clerk and his staff, that there was obviously a piece of work that we needed to do in the House of Assembly to define our precinct and it was absolutely fundamental on a go-forward basis for any future considerations. Right now, at the precinct, once this piece of legislation passes, Mr. Speaker, based upon leadership you and your staff have provided in bringing the Cabinet paper forward to happen, et cetera, in terms of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, no, I am speaking to the bill because I wanted to talk about something that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi mentioned.

Part of the notion of that former bill that we passed, Mr. Speaker, is part of what the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi just talked about in this bill, in the House of Assembly Act, in the division between the House of Assembly and the arm of government, and how important it is for us to jealousy guard not only the precinct of the House of Assembly - and we have done that earlier by passing that - but also to jealousy guard our authority as members of the House in passing legislation so that if it impacts the House, then we must bring amendments to the IEC Act. So there is recognition, as the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has just talked about, and I think he has hit on a most important point.

I will say to Members of the House of Assembly, and any member who ever has the opportunity or will ever have the opportunity to sit on the Internal Economy Commission, it is an important committee where we look at all functions of the House of Assembly. We administer it together, and we should continue to jealously guard that activity so the encroachment of the executive branch, or the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, whoever that may be, continues to understand, and those within government continue to understand, how important the House of Assembly functions are, whether it be its precinct, which we have defined tonight, whether it be amending our own act as it relates to government objectives, that we just do not automatically fall in, that we have our own business to partake in and that we must continue to jealously guard that.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I conclude second reading. Thanks to all members for participating in debate, and finally to say that I hope this piece of legislation does not subject you and your staff to what I was subjected to in the last fifteen minutes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act. (Bill 56)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to Committee of the Whole House?

MR. E. BYRNE: Later, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Later.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 56)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe it is moving second reading of Bill 52, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 52, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997." (Bill 52)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 52 is An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, and essentially the Explanatory Note is fairly clear. It is related to, I think, Bill 47 and Bill 48, amendments to the securities act and amendments to the insurance act which we have already passed through third reading.

This is related to that. Essentially, it says, "The Bill would amendment the Pension Benefits Act, 1997 to provide for the appointment of a Deputy Superintendent of Pensions...." That does not mean that government is hiring a Deputy Superintendent of Pensions, because we are not. This is an administrative function; I will explain in a second - "...to carry out the duties of the Superintendent of Pensions in his or her absence or incapacity and to exercise the powers and perform the duties delegated by the Superintendent of Pensions under any Act. Current legislation does not provide for the appointment of the Deputy Superintendent of Pensions."

This is related, and basically says, "(1.1) The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may appoint a Deputy Superintendent of Pensions..." - just to go through the act for a second - "...(a) to act in place of the superintendent in his or her absence or incapacity; and (b) to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the superintendent under an Act or regulations that may be assigned by the superintendent."

This is as it relates to Bill 47 and Bill 48.

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, we have had the benefit this session so far of doing the insurance piece, where they appointed a deputy. Again, in this case here, we have no difficulty with this particular piece of legislation and we will be supportive of it.

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

If he speaks now, he will close debate at second reading.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I appreciate the commentary because this is purely an administrative piece of legislation that puts in line, I guess, the changes that we have recently made under The Securities Act and The Insurance Companies Act; Bill 47 and Bill 48.

With that Mr. Speaker, I do conclude second reading on Bill 52, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 52, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 52)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. E. BYRNE: Later, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Later.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 52)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think this is, if I am not mistaken, the last bill that we are about to do in second reading. It is Bill 60, and I move second reading, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No 2.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 60, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No. 2, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No. 2." (Bill 60)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I recall being in the Opposition and many times, when a bill would come forward about amending the Financial Administration Act, automatically up would go your antennas: What is up here?

The Financial Administration Act is an important piece of legislation that governs all of the financial activities of government in terms of government spending, how we spend it, breaches to the act, breaking the law, compliance basically.

This bill essentially seeks concurrence of the House for government, which we don't have the right in law at the moment, or through the Legislature, for us to be able to settle accounts, I believe.

I can go through the - yes, it says, "The minister of each department..." Right now, for outstanding debts for government what this is asking is that, "Clause 1 of the Bill would repeal and substitute section 17 of the Financial Administration Act to provide for 2 additional levels of authority to settle debts due to claims made by the Province." This is important, "The minister of each department would be able to settle matters where the deficit to the province is $5,000 or less, while deputy ministers would be authorized to settle matters in accordance with Treasury Board guidelines where the deficit is $1,000 or less.

"Clause 2 of the Bill would amend section 18 to provide that it applies to all types of debts and taxes that are covered by sections 17 and 19.

"Clause 3 of the Bill would provide levels of authority corresponding to those in section 17 to settle accounts in relation to duties, taxes, and fines."

Essentially, Mr. Speaker, there are many people out there who owe government money, and where those debts are below the levels as prescribed by the bill, what the bill is asking for is to allow government, the minister and the deputy minister, in associated departments, to be able to go out - some of these debts, as members opposite would know being government, are fifteen, sixteen, seventeen and eighteen years old. Some of them are eight years old, nine years old. We have people out there, for example, Mr. Speaker, whose debt to the Province may be $4,000 and $2,200 of it could be interest.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-two thousand, if it is long enough.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes. The member says, in some cases, if was long enough, $22,000.

Right now, we are essentially bound by the confines of the act, to operate within that. What we are asking the Legislature to do, I guess, is to provide government, within the confines of what is here, with the ability to go out and settle those smaller amounts with people, so we can get it settled and get it out of the way. There are people out there who do not want that stuff hanging over their heads. I have advocated on many, many, many occasions for people in that position.

Essentially, that is what the bill is asking for, to provide some latitude for ministers of the Crown and deputy ministers to be able to settle accounts for smaller amounts, for people, to get it out of the way for them and for government and just retire it off the books altogether.

With that, I will conclude my opening remarks and look forward to any commentary that members opposite may have.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In reference to this bill, I say red flags go up whenever somebody is going to amend the Financial Administration Act. Usually people ask what is the government trying to do now and what are they trying to weasel out of or into and so on, but in this case, we do not, in principle - and this is the principle stage we deal with at second reading - have any disagreement with the bill, but a couple of things.

First of all, in addition to what the Government House Leader said, I think we have three parts here, not just the two. I think the first one is, if not as important, probably more important than the other two in terms of amounts because the first one says, "The minister may, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council and to another Act..." Now, I do not know - first of all, my first question is: What does that mean, that reference "...and to another Act..." mean? I do not know. But, in any case, it says the idea is that the minister, with the approval of the Cabinet can "...negotiate and accept a settlement of a debt or claim due or made by or on behalf of the... province in full settlement of that debt or claim..." So, that deals with the minister and Cabinet approval writing the debt off in full in that one.

The second part deals with the minister, if the debt is less than $5,000, can go ahead and write it off; if it is $5,000 or less. The third category deals with the deputy minister, if it is less than $1,000, can write it off. So, there are three categories here. I do not have any problem at all with the ministerial $5,000 piece and the deputy minister $1,000 piece but the first one causes some concern in the sense of, we have been dealing in this session with the words accountability and transparency and openness pretty regularly. I do not know if, by creating this right - and it is not that we disagree with the right, but if we are talking about openness and transparency, where will this action be recorded and made public?

It is very practical, for example, if the Minister of Justice is owed a bunch of bills that he has not been able to collect for the last forty-seven years and it is still on the books gathering interest, probably it is about time to clean up the mess. They probably will not be able to go collecting. Most of those people who owed a bill from 1953 are probably deceased by now. In any case, you probably will not get at them because the statute of limitations has expired but technically, on our books it is showing up. So, there is a lot of cleanup that this would accomplish by putting this through, and it allows very practical commonsense settlements.

If somebody owes you, sometimes it is much better - if you are owed $800, it is much better to take $400 in settlement than to set one of our lawyers onto it to try and get it in full because you will probably spend four times as much as that in legal fees trying to recover $800, or else you leave it sitting on your books and your books get in a mess. So, it is very practical what is being done here, but where is the accountability and the openness once you do that? That is what is of concern here, because we do not want anybody suggesting conspiracy theories. We do not want anybody suggesting that someone who is a friend of government got a bill wrote off. We do not want that, nobody wants that, but if somebody comes in right now under this section, and they owe the government $50 million, just to use an exaggeration, the government under this section, the minister with the approval of the Cabinet, has the right to write it off. All I am saying is, where does the accountability and openness piece come for somebody to vet, review, assess, analysis that decision and determine whether that writeoff was appropriate and proper and make it public? That is the concern that I have. Not with the under $1,000 ones, but even in that case you want to know about accountability. We are going to have strategic plans, activity plans and everything else here for departments to do - and they all file reports now - but this one here leads to possible abuse.

If a deputy minister in this government has the right, once this is done, without talking to anybody - does not have to talk to his minister, does not account to anybody. Anything under $1,000 the Deputy Minister of Fisheries, for example, can write it off. I do not think that is right. Not that he cannot write it off, but I do not think it is right that there is no mechanism to record what he did. There has to be some accountability so somebody can say what you did and somebody can question whether it was the right decision.

The same reason the Minister of Justice stood up here tonight and said: We have a bill here tonight, Supplementary Supply. I need more money for police officers. I had to go make the decision in an emergency and now I am coming back to you to tell you that I did it and I would like to get your approval. Not a problem. Very open.

That is the concern that we have here. The inconsistency is what is troublesome. The inconsistency of the government in putting forward here in this session, Bill 60. We have been here for - I believe this is the twelfth day the Legislature has been open. We defined it before we ever came in here, in a CBC interview and in press releases, as the openness and accountability session. We have been here till midnight and after some nights talking about openness and accountability. Yet, here in one stroke of one bill that we are dealing with tonight, the government of this Province, or any future government, could write off millions of dollars of debt and there is nowhere that I can see, where it tells you that the public would ever have to know about it. How does that fit the consistency of openness and accountability? Therein lies the problem that I have with that particular piece, not the principle of it, but I think we need to address the openness of it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do want to say a few words about Bill 60. This legislation, to amend the Financial Administration Act, has some certain positive aspects to it, Mr. Speaker. I know we have had experiences in the past.

I remember asking the previous ministers of social services, for example, to try and deal with overpayments that are on the books - some of them fifteen, sixteen, eighteen years of age - people who had been on social assistance and had an overpayment, then were off social assistance, came back on fifteen years later and the department of social services is taking money out of their cheques for something that happened fifteen years ago; could never even be fixed, probably wrongfully there in the first place. The minister of social services is telling me that they had no authority, they were told by the deputies: I am sorry Mr. Minister, you can't write it off. The Department of Finance has told us we have to collect it; we have to take this money. There was no discretion. We were told, in the minister of social services, to do the decent thing, even when it could be shown that there were extenuating circumstances some ten or twelve years ago that the individual may have had no control over.

We cannot have a situation, Mr. Speaker, where injustices can be done because there is no provision to write off, not bad debts, but write off debts or make compromises on obligations to the Crown when it is fair and reasonable to do so. The fairness and reasonableness of doing so might be in the interest of getting on with life and not keeping too much stuff on the books that is uncollectible or difficult to collect, taking something now rather than keeping something on your books forever. It is something that there needs to be flexibility on. So I support, in general, the principle that is arranged or that is provided for here.

 

We also have situations such as the Member for Labrador West raised today, where you might have a student loan debt. There is a considerable student loan portfolio that government has now taken over and is going to be in charge of. There may be instances where, despite the fact that there is no provision for bankruptcy under the federal law because of stupid changes, in my view, that were made in the federal Legislature at the insistence of the Reform Party a couple of years ago - I think they were called the Canadian Alliance at the time - because there were a few cases across the country somewhere of people taking advantage of bankruptcy legislation to get rid of huge student loan debts and then carrying on with their medical practice or some such thing like that, as a result, hundreds of thousands of students across this country have suffered, and many in this Province, by having high student loan debts, many of them unmanageably high, without ever any prospect of having any employment to go with it to be able to pay them off principally because, I say - I have said it before and I say it again - of some of the abuses in the private education system, and they, by virtue of the legislation of Canada, could not declare bankruptcy.

There are lots of circumstances, Mr. Speaker, where people end up or find themselves in a situation where they owe government money. We still have the government collecting school tax. School tax was abolished in 1993, but there are still people coming and saying they received a bill from the Department of Finance for - as the Government House Leader mentioned, it might be a bill for $3,000 or $4,000, most of which is interest.

So, there needs to be flexibility, there needs to be ability to compromise for those claims. You have to have it. You have to have it, but you cannot have abuses either, and I understand what the Opposition House Leader is suggesting, that there must be some form of accountability so that there is at least some general awareness of what is going on. You cannot have favouritism shown in circumstances like that, and there should be some mechanism for dealing with government write-offs or uncollectible debts. We have that occurring. It could be as much as huge amounts of money that are owed to government that are totally unrecoverable, and there may be legitimate reasons for writing it off. There may be, in fact, special circumstances that arise in any number of circumstances.

Government, I suppose, always has the ability, through the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, to make those kinds of decisions, but there should be some reporting mechanism. I do not know what is going to be proposed by government here to satisfy the concerns that have been raised, but, in principle, I support the right of the minister or the department being able to make a compromise on bills up to a certain amount, or on claims by government up to a certain amount. There is a need for some efficient way of doing that, and this - at least with respect to the smaller amounts - appears to be a very efficient way of doing so and we offer our support for that approach.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

If the hon. the Government House Leader speaks now, he will close debate at second reading.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will say that this piece of legislation is designed, as I have said up front, to settle debts that are outstanding, and have been for some time.

The Member for Bellevue made a good point earlier when he sang out across the House. We have people who have outstanding balances with government. The principal may be $3,000 or $4,000, and they owe $22,000 because interest has been stacking and accumulating. What is the chance of ever collecting some of that? Not much. The purpose and intent of the bill itself is designed to give government and departments the flexibility to settle some of those accounts.

With respect to the point that my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, raised, there is no attempt here - when he raised the point that we could write off $50 million or $60 million without having told anybody. It is highly unlikely that government would ever, ever, get away with that; or, even if we attempted to, would not get away with it. It certainly would be picked up through the departments of government, whether it be the Comptroller General's office, whether it be the Auditor General's office, or whether it be within the Transparency and Accountability Act of reporting. Having said that, we will have more of a debate in the clause-by-clause section in Committee next week on this, potentially and hopefully.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I do now move conclusion of second reading of Bill 60, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No. 2.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 60, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No 2, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No 2. (Bill 60)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No 2," read a second time, ordered referred to the Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 60)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the Committee, Mr. Speaker, be -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: One second, Mr. Speaker, it has been a long night.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

MS S. OSBORNE: Resolve itself into Committee of -

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I move the House resolve itself into Committee to consider a number of bills which we have put forward tonight and concluded in second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on a number of bills.

Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on a number of bills?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I move that we begin debate on Bill 54, in Committee, the Court Security Act.

CHAIR: Bill 54, An Act Respecting Court Security.

A bill, "An Act Respecting Court Security." (Bill 54)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to rise at Committee, and I was not aware we were going to go into Committee on this tonight because I did have some discussions with the minister, but I have some significant objections to the provisions of the bill that provide for the authority to search.

Throughout the act, the reference is made to screening of individuals coming to a courthouse. I would have no difficulty with the notion of screening compatible with the kind of screening that goes on at airports, for example, the kind of screening that goes on in this House of Assembly, if you walk through a metal or electronic detector that will signal whether there is some metal present, or some sort of machines that are used to detect metal or other objects that might be screened through an electronic device, but I have a significant problem with giving Sheriff's Officers authority to conduct personal searches of individuals. That seems to be contemplated by the act. I think that goes too far - we have a system which is recognized as people's privacy and right to privacy - to conduct searches of that nature. We do allow searches to be conducted if somebody is going to be incarcerated in an institution. The officers in charge of a lockup have the right to conduct searches for the safety of prisoners who are incarcerated, having committed crimes, or in the case of remand, with other remand prisoners who are remanded to face trial. For the public entering a courtroom, Mr. Chairman, that is a public court, it is the right of citizens to attend a court, and to suggest that there be a general right of search is repugnant.

It is kind of hidden in fact, Mr. Chairman, because it is done in the definition. In clause 2 is says "‘screen' and ‘screening' means to search using methods prescribed by regulation." Well, Mr. Chairman, that doesn't give me much comfort at all, because I don't know what the regulations are, what regulations are going to be prescribed, what is contemplated by the government in producing regulations.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible). That is the way it works.

MR. HARRIS: It is the way it works. That is the problem, Mr. Chairman, that is exactly the problem. The Government House Leader says we don't have any regulations, why don't you complain about them when they come out.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, that is not what I said.

MR. HARRIS: If you want to get into debate, get up and (inaudible) the debate.

MR. CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am not trying to be facetious. I have just said that we cannot put a body of regulations together on a bill until we pass a bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: One second now. Let me finish.

The Leader of the Opposition, the former Premier, former minister in many portfolios, in all of his days in this House, in legislation that he has sponsored and passed, not once did he ever put a set of regulations on the desk of any member to be debated; not once.

MR. GRIMES: That is not true. (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Ah ha! I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I just wanted to be clear on what I said. I am not trying to interrupt you. Any time that I have taken with my interjection, you can have back, but I just wanted to be clear in terms of what I said. I didn't say we will debate that after. I didn't say that at all. I just want to be clear on the process for everybody.

When the Leader of the Opposition says that is not true, for fifteen years, while he was in government in many portfolios and as Premier, sponsoring many pieces of legislation, not once was a regulation ever tabled in the House to be debated; not once.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair has to ask: Did the Government House Leader rise on a point of order?

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Okay. To that point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: There is certainly no point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Now, we are here tonight at 10:30 or exactly 10:43 - I should follow the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. A long night, as the minister said when he tried to rise in Committee. We are debating clause by clause a bill about court security, a bill that we saw for the first time in the last hour. We gave first reading of it an hour ago; it was distributed. The minister spoke to it and talked about searching people going into courtrooms.

Now, Mr. Chairman, when I read the act I saw screen people here, screen people there and then it says, then I spotted - having seen this legislation for the first time tonight in the extraordinary sitting of the House, after hours. The word screen is defined as "...to search using methods prescribed by regulation." Well, I do not have a regulation. I do not expect to have a regulation but I do not expect to have to pass a bill giving authority to search based on some regulation which says I do not know what, and that is the point. If the minister wants to say we do not write regulations until after the act is passed, he is absolutely right, but I do not think we should be giving authority to search individuals on performing lawful activities by going into a courthouse willy-nilly in this Legislature, and that is my point.

I am here, as a member of this House, and one of my jobs, I think, is to guard and safeguard the privileges and privacy and respect and dignity of individuals in our society. Now, there may well be reasons to screen people who are going into courthouses. There may be circumstances of high tension when court officials have concerns or reasons to believe that someone might be willing or interested in carrying out some negative activity potentially using weapons coming into a courtroom and people should have the ability to prevent that from happening. I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with giving search powers, the power of law, without having any idea what those powers are. I think it is wrong, Mr. Chairman. If we want to have screening devices on every courtroom in the land, I have no problem with that. If the minister is willing to take out the definition of search there, take search out of it, I would have no problem with that either.

I do not think, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the fact that we can give a special definition to a word that means something else, because screen does not mean search. Screen means, somehow or other, carry out some screening procedure. That does not give the power to search. The power to search - if you want me to go into details about what the power to search means - any individual walking into a courtroom can be searched by court officials, which could mean a strip search, it could mean any other forms more intrusive than that, Mr. Chairman. I will go into details if I have to, but this is something that is being laid on this House of Assembly at this late hour of the day to give authority, which I think goes far beyond what is necessary to do the job that needs to be done.

I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the interjection of the Government House Leader - I know was well meaning, but if it serves to de-legitimize what I am saying here, Mr. Chairman, it is wrong, because what I am saying here is not wrong. What I am saying here is that we have a very serious concern about the kind of powers that we give to individuals in our society. You know, there is an awful lot of law up and down the Supreme Court of Canada on the powers of search and seizure, and what police are allowed to do and what they are not allowed to do. They are designed to protect the liberty of the individual in society.

I think we have an obligation here in this House to ensure that people who are going about their lawful business, attending a public court where the administration of justice goes on, are not going to be subject to unreasonable search and seizure, or unreasonable search in this case. That is the whole point here, Mr. Chairman. One has to be very vigilant in our society to protect the rights of citizens. It is all very well to say that the state has all sorts of rights and we need to protect the power of the courts to carry out justice, the administration of justice. We all depend on that. We want it to be impartial. We want it to be able to be carried out without threat of being coercion by anybody who is willing to come to a court under threat. We have not seen the need - or it has not been demonstrated to me in this House - for the kind of search provisions that are contained in this particular legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I want to know whether or not this minister is prepared to recognize that the definition of screen here goes too far and that it should not be open to regulation to define screen as any kind of a search that may be prescribed by regulation. I think we have to give serious consideration to the issues that I am raising here tonight, Mr. Chairman. We cannot just go pass legislation because it happens to be presented in a well-meaning way. I know that somebody has obviously thought out this act because it was felt to be a necessity that there be some way of having the powers of police officers to ensure that there are not any weapons in a courtroom.

Mr. Chairman, there are ways, I suppose, to keep people out. If you have a screening device - if somebody goes through a screening device and the red lights go off and they are not prepared to show you what is in their pockets, well maybe they would not be allowed to go into the courtroom, but that does not mean you are entitled to search them. That does not mean you are entitled then to go ahead and conduct a search of somebody's person because some red light went off. You might not want to let them in the courtroom if they are not prepared to show you what is in their pocket that set the light off.

As the Leader of the Opposition said, there is a screening device up there. So, I suppose if somebody walks through that and it goes off, beeps, and the security guard says: What have you got in your pocket? Well, it is none of your business. They can say: Boy, if you are not prepared to tell me what is in your pocket you do not get in, but he cannot haul me into a room and search me.

That is what I am talking about here, Mr. Chairman, the power to search as set out in this act. It gives not only the power to search - if you go down through the legislation, they are not only entitled to search them, they are entitled to take them to a separate area to conduct the search. We are talking about a serious infringement on people's rights to carry out a search of that nature. This is something that we did not - here we are, "A security officer may require a person inside a court area to move to a place, inside or outside the court area, where screening for weapons may be conducted." What is that, if not a search of that nature?

I think we have to look carefully at this legislation before we are convinced that the kind of search that might be proposed, that might be contained in regulations - we do not know what is contained in regulations - but the kind of search that could be contained in regulations is authorized to be conducted without proper consideration and infringement on peoples right.

Mr. Chairman, those are my comments in relation to the search provisions. I know the minister was going to check on what was intended here and perhaps he has something to say about it.

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

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

When we talk about anybody's rights, rights are not absolute, rights have to be balanced and there are a number of different competing interests here. What we are talking about here is protecting the people who are attending the courts.

We talked earlier about the fact that court proceeding take place among circumstances and much emotion. As I said before, judges that incarcerate people. They take security and liberty away from people and have them incarcerated in institutions. That is an interference with a right, but it is an interference with a right that we give to our judges for the protection of society.

Also in family matters, family matters are extremely emotional. I think someone said earlier: When you hear of a judge being attacked or a judge being killed, which has happened, it is usually in relation to a family matter. It is in matters such as those where emotions take over from reason. I have seen people have judgements awarded against them for millions of dollars and not bother them, but you issue an order that takes away somebody's child, then that is a different matter all together.

As part of their duties, the peace officers, and particularly the Sheriff's officers, who are permanently stationed at the various courts are required to interdict and sometimes search persons of a suspicious nature who are or make themselves persons of interest. Such searches are conducted for the purpose of determining whether or not those people have weapons. Searches are taking place now. The searches are conducted to determine if they have weapons dangerous to the court and other people attending the court.

During jury or other high profile contentious criminal and civil trials -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. T. MARSHALL: - Sheriff's officers have also used hand-held electronic wands to search attendees at courts for illegal weapons. In conducting such interdictions and searches, the Sheriff's officers have found items ranging from steak knives, pocket knives, switchblades, metal spikes and other paraphernalia that could be considered weapons.

Mr. Chair, anecdotal evidence or incidents that have been reported from the courts include outbursts, threats, intimidation, unsuccessful attempts of prisoner escape, family matters where one of the participants have attempted unsuccessfully to remove a child from a court contrary to a judge's direction, dealing with emotionally driven persons and victims in family and criminal law situations.

In Ottawa, right now, a peace officer must have reasonable and probably grounds to conduct a search. Courts in this country have upheld the general principle that someone in the general population visiting the court might be carrying a weapon and that is not a good enough reason to subject all persons, or any and all persons, visiting such a site to search unless specific reasonable or probable grounds exist.

The purpose of this act is, in fact, to give the court security officers the right to screen and search for weapons on people who are entering the courts. There is no Statute existing in this jurisdiction authorizing such searches. There is nothing in the Sheriff's Act of 1991 nor the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, to give powers to conduct searches by police or peace officers in a court beyond those provided by common law or Statute.

This legislation has been reviewed by the Chief Judge and by the Chief Justices in the Court of Appeal and the Trial Division and they have approved our bringing this forward. They have been consulted with the legislation and they will be consulted with any regulations that the Attorney General is to put forward under this legislation. This is for the protection of the people attending what could be volatile situations, and that right has to be balanced against the rights to privacy, but I think this right would be paramount in that situation.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am sure the minister will address the concerns that I raised earlier. Again, I am not sure exactly what section we are at here, but I haven't heard him allude to that particular section. That was my concern about the difference in section 11 and section 12, which we are going to come to, about why the rules committee of the Supreme Court decides certain things but, when it comes to the provincial court, it is left to the minister. I am sure we will get to that when we get further along in section 11.

I take it right now we are at section 2 which is dealing with the definition section. The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi raised the issue of screening, and I think that is a very legitimate concern. We are talking here about an act that is going to be passed telling you, you can screen somebody. We are saying that the definition of screen means to search using methods prescribed by regulation, but not telling us what the methods are. The right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is again one of the paramount rights that we have. The Minister of Health knows that, he studied that, and I am sure he concurs with that. Yet, the Minister of Justice is not telling us here what those methods of search will be.

In that regard, I say to the Minister of Justice - I ask the question again about consistency. I try to be consistent, and I will ask this question again. We have two bills going on here tonight, by the way. We have another one we are going to get to later, Bill 59, the Anomalies and Errors Bill. Here we are talking about regulations. We have heard it throughout this whole debate in this House this week: Don't ask us about the regulations, that comes later. We will tell you about it later. Snowmobiles: Don't ask us to put anything on the Table here to give you any guidance about regulations. We have to get the act in place first. I would submit, that if you had taken the time to prepare the regulations of what you are going to say once you pass your act, and if people could have a look at that, it might help people over on this side more easily decide if we could be supportive of your bill.

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I say to the Minister of Tourism, I don't care if you have all of the regulations fleshed out, I don't care if we have had ten weeks to analyze them, but when you come in here with a bill that requires very substantive and detailed issues to be dealt with in regulations, and you don't even give us any guidance of what you are going to say in those regulations, I think that is unfair. We have an obligation here to be able to, hopefully, speak knowledgeably about what we are dealing with and get some guidance.

I am getting lots of guidance from the Open Line shows and e-mails about the snowmobiles, and I don't have any answers to give to these people. I am saying to them, the minister is not giving us any of your answers. I cannot answer them for you. I cannot tell you that the minister is going to exempt traditional users. The minister is not committing to that, so I can't tell you that.

We are being told again tonight, in this one here, we will tell you what search is all about and the methods of search later in a regulation. We will tell you with the snowmobiles. Pass it here, agree with us, don't cause any fuss, be agreeable and pass it and we will tell you later what the regulations are going to say about it. We realize the process - I think everybody here realizes the process - that you have to get the principal act before you officially proclaim your regulations, but I do not know of any law that says you cannot have your regulations that you know you are going to use made public and given to the Legislatures to consider in guidance as to whether they support the principle of your act that you are trying to get at.

MR. GRIMES: Or at least a draft.

MR. PARSONS: Or at least a draft of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I say to the minister, it is not a case of whether it was ever done before or not. We are talking about the new approach, an open, accountable and transparent government that we have here. On top of that - I mentioned inconsistencies earlier, the anomalies act that we are going to get into in this session as well. I refer here to that act for a second, just for a point of illustration. There is a section 33 in the anomalies act that the Minister of Justice is also going to bring forward some time in this session, hopefully tonight. In subsection (2) of section 33, it says, "Section 16 of the Act is repealed." What that says, folks, is, as a result of that repeal of section 16, discontinuance of the practice of tabling regulations in the House of Assembly.

MR. GRIMES: What bill is that in?

MR. PARSONS: That is in an anomalies bill that we are going to come to later tonight or later in the session.

We are asking for some guidance, and they are saying: Wait until we get them done. We will show you when we get them done.

MR. GRIMES: Then, when you get them done, they will not table them.

MR. PARSONS: When we get them done, they are telling us now in another bill that we are going to have, we do not have to table any regulations any more in the House.

Now, the legislators who are supposed to be having some input into this legislation, we are not going to see it as guidance when we are debating the principal bill. Forget about it. Trust us. We will do what is right and proper, once you agree with our bill. On top of that now, we do not even have to table the regulations any more in the House of Assembly when you get them done.

We have to go look to the gazette now. We have to figure out when government is going to do something. We have to keep an eagle's eye, as legislators, on the Statutes of Newfoundland and regulations site on the Web site, or else come here to the Legislature Library, because we are not going to get a copy any more tabled in here so we can have a look at them.

I have a problem with that fitting the crusade of openness and transparency. There are some inconsistencies here. Again, it is not a case of this side wanting to be disruptive, disagreeable, and not agree with the principle of the act, but there are very legitimate questions that the Leader of the NDP has asked here - no answers.

Again, the Minister of Justice, on this issue of: Why do we have two standards? - maybe there is a very legitimate reason. All we are asking for is the explanation. Why, for example, do the Rules Committee of the Supreme Court and the Unified Family Court decide these items that are outlined in section 11 or section 12, but yet, when it comes to the Provincial Court, the minister has to do it? What is the difference? I thought courts were all independent, formed part of the judicial arm. In fact, again, if you want to compare it to the accountability act and the transparency act, you even have a clause in that act which says it does not apply to the provincial court system, or the court systems.

I am just getting a little confused over here and we are not getting much guidance from the minister, with all due respect, in explaining these things. I would appreciate if you could maybe explain it and do not give the view, or do not think, that we are being disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable.

With those comments, maybe the minister might educate us again as to what is proper here.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Opposition House Leader has raised a point about transparency. The fact of the matter is that all regulations are publicly available once a piece of legislation has been enacted and all regulations are published, and they are published on the government Web site. Whether you want to keep an eagle's eye open to it or not, you can describe it any way, but any regulation and all regulations associated with every piece of legislation that is passed in this House are published on the government Web site. It is as easy as going in -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. E. BYRNE: That is what I am saying. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, I acknowledged he said that. My point is, it is very difficult to say you are not being transparent and accountable when you are making it publicly available on the Web site for not only anyone in the Province but anyone in the world to see.

Having said that, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has made a point - and fair enough - in terms that he is looking for some more information. Maybe the member can give me some guidance. With respect to the bill as you understand it now, is that the only section that you have difficulty with, I ask the member? That seems to be the section that - I did not hear if you had any other difficulty with any other sections.

In the interest of fairness, we will move on to another bill in Committee. The minister will have the opportunity, with his staff, to provide, I guess, some more guidance, to use the term by members opposite. It is an important piece of legislation. I think we need to acknowledge, and I think we have acknowledged, that it is an important piece of legislation dealing with court security. It would not be tabled in the House for us to debate if it was not an important piece of legislation.

With that, Mr. Chair, I move that we move to Bill 52, to debate in Committee -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: If it would be okay, would the minister be able to just respond and then we can move to another piece of legislation? Would that be appropriate, or did you want to debate it some more?

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Go ahead.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: I certainly had additional comments and concerns to make about the bill, but I would be happy to make them another time, and perhaps it will provide an opportunity for the minister and I to discuss it at some point, or with officials later on. I am not sure what the minister wants to respond to, whether he wants to respond to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I do not have a problem with him doing that.

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

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

I rise once again. I have been up here so much today, pretty soon I think I will consider running in Quidi Vidi-Signal Hill.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the Opposition House Leader. I think we should note that, under section 11 of this legislation, the Lieutenant-Governor, the Cabinet, is permitted to make regulations that will designate a building, or part of a building, as a court area. It can also designate that court area as a restricted zone. It can designate an area adjacent to the court area, but the Cabinet cannot make regulations as to what happens within that area. It is important to note that.

I refer the members here in this House to section 9 of the act, which says, "This Act shall not be considered to derogate from or replace the power of a judge under common law or otherwise to control the proceedings of the court."

As the Opposition House Leader knows, there is a basic principle of judicial independence, and that principle of judicial independence consists of three separate parts. On the one hand, there is security of tenure. That means a judge cannot be dismissed. The judge has office during good behaviour. He cannot arbitrarily be dismissed by the government or by anyone else. A judge also has financial security. The judges' salary cannot be reduced by government, if they do not like the decision of a judge. For the salary of a judge to be changed or for a financial benefit to be taken from a judge, it has to be done through an independent buffer, so a tribunal is appointed to calculate judges' salaries and benefits.

The regulations that the Opposition House Leader is referring to in section 11.(2) of the legislation and in section 12 of the legislation are regulations dealing with what happens within the court area, because the third element of judicial independence is the fact that it is the judge that controls the administration of his court and his docket, including whether or not they go on circuit. Within the regulations set out in section 11.(2) and the regulations set out in section 12 we are regulating what goes on in those court areas.

Subsection 11.(2)(a)(b)(c)(d)(e) and (f) all deal with matters going on within the court areas and it is the same with Section 12. Section 12 deals with what goes on within the court areas of the Trial Division and the Court of Appeal. Section 11.(2) deals with what goes on with respect to inside the court areas of the Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Trial Division has requested that the rules committee will make rules with respect to security in the court area of the Trial Division, the Court of Appeal and the Unified Family Court, whereas under subsection (2) of section 11, the minister shall recommend to the Cabinet the regulations, "...upon the advice of the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador...". The reality is that only the judges can make rules and the judges' authority is paramount, or the Chief Judge is paramount within his court to judge his case.

Interesting, Mr. Chairman, not long ago changes were made to circuit courts in different parts of the Province. Those changes were not made by the government, those changes were made by the Chief Judge. I had a discussion with the Chief Judge and I suggested to him that he may wish to reconsider some of his decisions, in particular the circuit court in Twillingate. He said to me that I could not tell him to reinstitute the circuit court in Twillingate, but I could ask him, and I did.

That is the difference between these two sections. The Chief Judges of the Supreme Court will determine what happens within their court areas.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. T. MARSHALL: I will be happy to.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to move to Bill 52, to discuss in Committee the Pension Benefits Act, 1997.

CHAIR: Bill 52, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997." (Bill 52)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1. Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 52, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against.

Bill 52 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. speaker.

I move to Bill 56, to discuss in Committee the IEC Act.

CHAIR: Bill 56, An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act." (Bill 56)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1. Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

Clause 1 is carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor in 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: Against?

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 56, An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

Bill 56 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move to Bill 63, amendments to the Public Service Pensions Act, to discuss in Committee.

CHAIR: Bill 63, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991." (Bill 63)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1. Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Just for the record, this is Bill 63 we are on now right?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: Yes. Again, Mr. Chairman, I raised a question here earlier and I think, it is a legitimate question. Some people referred to this as the Debbie Forward act. I raised the question about the retroactivity being to March 28, 1996. Again, for the record, we are supportive of this bill, but I don't think it treats everybody fairly and equitably. From what I understanding, the purpose of this here is - Ms Forward, in her particular case, for example, if she were a nurse she would make contributions to the pension plan based upon her nurse's salary.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: She is a nurse. When she becomes President of the Association, she can still make her contributions as a nurse, but with this change she will be able to make contributions as the President, at her higher range, which improves her pension benefits at the end of the day. That is my understanding of what this is going to do. That is fine, I have no problem, and I support it wholeheartedly for Ms Forward, but I think if we are going to do things right, I submit we should do it right for everybody who is impacted.

In my brief checking that I have done since we discussed this in second reading, there are three people in this Province who would avail of this piece of legislation; three people, Ms Forward being one of them. Now, I am not saying, again, that anybody has to. If that person was a President of the Association prior to 1996, they would have the right, if this were made retroactive to the establishment of the Newfoundland and Labrador's Nurses Association - not saying they want to. Maybe they don't want to. I am sure there are some who are not alive anymore. That is fine. If they are alive, and if you are going to do something for one person and if that person - I believe there are other people out there in the same boat. They should have the right, if they want to, to exercise the same privilege and say: If I want to go back now and make the increased contribution for when I was the President of the Nurses Association, they ought to be able to have the right to do so. We shouldn't be passing legislation just for one person. We should be passing legislation because it is right for anybody who finds themselves in that situation. That is the point I am trying to make here.

Again, it comes down to, I would suggest, the research. It wouldn't be a big deal to find out who is impacted by this, and at least they should be given the right. We are talking about fairness, we are talking about equity, and I think as legislators we have an obligation to treat everybody fairly. I don't think that is asking too much, to say, if there are two other people in this Province who might avail of the goodness of this legislation - because that is what it is. It is the proper thing to do and it is the right thing to do. I don't think we should be discriminatory in our legislative movements by giving it to one and not giving it to the other two.

That is all I say this for, because this will come back to bite somebody because it is innately unfair and discriminatory in and of itself. Let's treat everybody, I submit, fairly and equitably and do the right thing and make it retroactive so that anybody it impacts - all we are doing is giving them the right. That individual might decide: Look, I am sorry, I have been retired now for fifteen years and I don't want to do it. I am not going to make my contribution to the pension fund to get it readjusted. At least we would have treated them fairly should they wish to exercise the same right and the same opportunity that we are now going to give to Ms Forward, which is the proper thing to do.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The fact of the matter is this, we are correcting a situation on a go-forward basis.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The Leader of the Opposition says: No, we are not. You can fight for whoever you want to fight with or fight for. What I am saying to the member opposite, you, as a government, had the opportunity - and even your colleague tonight talked about, there was a Cabinet paper that she brought forward. Why that was not passed -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It never went forward?

AN HON. MEMBER: I didn't bring it forward.

MR. E. BYRNE: Okay, but there was something came forward.

All we are attempting to do here is to correct an anomaly on a go-forward basis. The decision was taken to do that for now and into the future, and that is the basis on which we made it and that is the basis on which we are going to stick to it. The reason why it says in the paper, retroactive to 1996, is because the person who is presently in the job, that is when she became the President of the Nurses' Union. So, we are correcting that for her, and not only for her but for everybody who comes after her. It is the same benefit that is provided to the President of the NLTA -

MR. LANGDON: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, I say to the Member for Fortune, that is what pay equity is about I suppose. You cannot correct everything back to 1949 or 1959 or 1963. We have made a decision, as a government, to move forward and to progress this piece of legislation to be inclusive for the current President of the Nurses' Union and anybody who comes after her who is elected as President of the Nurses' Union. That is our commitment, to move forward on it, and we are not looking back further than that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just raise this point as an aside for the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's who, from his seat, made some comment to the point: you people sat on it over there; in respect to this bill.

Mr. Chairman, we will be raising a point with respect to procedure, not tonight, but probably before the House sits. It may be a private session with the Speaker, on Monday again, about rules and proper conduct in the House because during this debate the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's was taking a phone call while sitting in his seat, which is against the rules of this House.

MR. MANNING: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Again, he is saying he was not but there are one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight sitting right around him, plus this person right here who saw it and heard it. I do not want to get into that tonight. He knows that he broke the rules, and we should all abide by the rules. If we are going to allow telephones at our desks, let's make it a rule. If we are going to allow laptops on our desks, let's make it a rule. We are sitting here, it is a House where we operate by an honour system. I say, Mr. Chairman, an honour system. Again, I said I am not going to get into it tonight but I raise it for one purpose, because it demonstrates again that some members - we are all supposed to be honourable members - are more honourable, I guess, than others because when you are caught red-handed - there is an old adage that one of my friends told me, that when you are caught red-handed with your fingers in the cookie jar you should say: And the cookies were very good, thank you very much. Instead of trying to say my fingers were not in the cookie jar. I will just use that example and we will move on, Mr. Chairman. The members opposite and members on this side know what I am talking about.

Now, with respect to this issue, there is an issue of fairness here, inherent fairness. Again, there is a logic problem here that I have difficulty with, because the Government House Leader has said two things. He said we are doing this on a go forward basis. We are not going to reach back into the past, we are not going to go back to Confederation. It is on a go-forward basis. A go-forward basis, by definition - and one of the members opposite likes to keep saying - I believe it is the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture who says: check the meaning in the dictionary. Look in the dictionary, he says. I think he says it quite a bit. Look in the dictionary. Well, look in the dictionary about go forward and all the precedence with respect to go forward in this Legislature, for legislation means that if it passes today it takes effect as of today and it goes on into the future.

In one breath the Government House Leader says we are doing this on a go-forward basis. Now, if that is the rationale then this bill has no retroactive impact. It means that whatever happened before today, before this bill passes, is water under the bridge. It is done. It is past. It is over and we are not going to reach back into the past. But, in the second breath, what has the Government House Leader said? He used this word: But it is going to be retroactive. But it cannot be both. It cannot be a go-forward piece of legislation and a retroactive piece of legislation at the same time.

What he is now defining - and maybe the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture will find this in his dictionary so he can bring himself to agree with him. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is going to find a way to agree that go forward and retroactive mean the same thing because that is what the Government House Leader is trying to make us believe, that this bill is go forward and retroactive at the same time and that there is no problem with that. Retroactive is only going to go back to 1996, but by being retroactive for only eight years that is not retroactive at all, that is going forward. Does anybody here follow why I have a bit of a quandary in the logic of that?

So, if you have bought into the argument that it is retroactive - by the way, the public service workers would hope that when they get their raise in year three and year four that, with the new found wealth of the government, it might be retroactive. You might decide to forget about the two-year wage freeze and that you might go back to this year and give them a raise. That is what they would all like and hope, but guess what the raise is going to be? It is going to be on a go-forward basis. It is going to start in 1996 and it is not going to go back and cover 1995 and it is not going to go back and cover 1994, because that is not go forward. That is retroactive. If you go back a day it is retroactive. So, is it go forward or is it retroactive? I contend that by virtue of the last clause, it says: The paragraph shall be considered to have come into effect and force on March 28, 1996.

Now, we are going to have thirty members on that side stand up and vote for that and say: that means on a go-forward basis. Now, that defies any logic to me. Some of them are at least willing to acknowledge that you cannot stand up - you can go out and describe this as a go-forward piece of legislation because it is retroactive. It is going to take effect back to March, 1996, folks. So if you are going to go back to March, 1996, than do not talk about go forward, talk about why you are only going back eight years. Now, the Government House Leader has said why he is only going back eight years; why it is only going to be retroactive eight years instead of ten years or twelve years or fifteen years. He said: because the current incumbent in the office has been in that office for eight years.

The retroactivity matches the period of time for the current incumbent, so it is not go-forward at all. It is retroactive, but the government has decided that it is to be retroactive for only one person. Why? Why only one person? The other thing is, my understanding of the pension act and the pension liabilities and so on today is this: The current person who is impacted will have the right to buy back some pension benefit that they were denied before. Unless it has changed, the buying back does not add liability to the pension plans, by the way, unless this government is going to change it, because you do not just pay the money; you have to buy it back at an actuarially assessed value. I think that is the law. This is a big decision for this one person to make. It is not like this is cheap. They have to decide whether the benefit they are going to purchase is worth the amount of money they are going to be asked to put in. There is a big personal decision to make there, and it does not add any liability to the pension plan - none at all - because the actuarial assessment says you must pay an amount that guarantees that the plan will not be negatively or adversely impacted.

A Liberal government brought in that law, by the way, supported by a Conservative Opposition at the time. Before that you could just pay it based on the salary, what you had forgone, and it did not matter if that was enough to cover the plan or not. That law has been changed. I saw some nods. I am sorry to use that phrase, but I saw some nods from people on the other side who are agreeing with me, that is still the rule. That is the law. There is no liability to the government, there is no liability to the pension plan, and there are only two or three people who would even then be given the option to avail of it only if it is cost-neutral to the pension plan. What are we resisting? I could understand some level of resistance if you were incurring a liability, because you are very conscious about money. You are obsessed about money. If there was any risk of liability to the plan, I could understand some resistance to going back beyond 1996. You have established a principle. You have already established the principle, I say, Mr. Chairman, that you are willing to be retroactive to eight years. There is no increased liability financially to the government or the pension plan, so why not, on the basis of fairness, balance and equity, make the offer to every person who was a president of the nurses' union before?

I stand here and speak as a former president of the teachers' union. I had this benefit. This benefit which is now being conferred upon nurses' presidents - as the Government House Leader said - was always there for teacher presidents. It has been there since 1973. It always was there, so it is clear that this was an anomaly. By the way, those who have been President of the Nurses' Union, many of them, given at least the choice, may opt not to bother because it might be so expensive to purchase the extra thing that it is not worth the extra benefit; but, why would they be even denied the opportunity to consider it on the basis of fairness and balance and equity? I just do not understand it.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I will stop there but I would really implore all of the government members, and particularly the Government House Leader who is sponsoring this bill tonight on behalf of the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, to consider an amendment with respect to the effective date, the retroactive date. Even if you want, there is only one other point that, in my mind, Mr. Chairman, would make some logical sense as a break point, and I would like for the Government House Leader to listen to this one last point if I could.

I could understand, Mr. Chairman, and I believe the representatives of the nurses could understand, and many others could understand, that maybe you would not want to go retroactive back in history beyond the point in time when the pension plans were first established. There was always a pension plan, but the funds, the creation of actual funds for the plan, were started by Brian Peckford when he was the Premier. Up to then it was all taken from the general revenues of the Province, so there might be a logical point of going back to say it would not be retroactive back before 1981; because, back before 1981, there was not a public sector pension plan as such. There was a benefit plan but there was no money in a pot, but there has been money in a separate pot since Brian Peckford instituted it in 1981. So, if there was some point at which there wanted to be a logical reason not to go back beyond it, that might make some sense, but to stop arbitrarily at 1996 defies logic, in my view.

Now, I hope someone will respond to that, Mr. Chairman, and take it seriously. I am not trying to cause trouble, not trying to do anything to harm the benefit that is going to be made available to the current President of the Nurses' Union, but asking for some logic to be applied to it, for some understanding, for some fairness and some equity, when there is no fiscal financial liability possible or remotely possible to the government. I ask, to see whether someone is going to respond to that request on behalf of the Presidents Past of the Nurses' Union.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am always interested in the defying logic that the Leader of the Opposition talks about. A couple of facts, first of all. We know tonight that the former government, when he was Premier, had a paper, or a Cabinet paper was in the system, and they did not deal with this. So, they had an opportunity to deal with something on a fairness basis, that they failed to do and did not want to do.

Secondly, so the Leader of the Opposition is clear, it was clear in second reading what government's intention is, that we are dealing with a present situation and a present President of the Nurses' Union, and, as a result of dealing with the present President of the Nurses' Union, we must, in our view, date it back to 1996 when she was elected president. That is where it is for us. That is the decision we made. Now, everybody who comes after Ms Forward, in the capacity as president, will receive the benefit. We are not reaching back beyond the current president. That was a decision that we had taken. Like pay equity, it is just like the same -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is discriminatory.

MR. E. BYRNE: Discriminatory? This is the government that failed on pay equity, and they are going to lecture us on discrimination of people within the public service? Not likely. We are trying to correct an anomaly for the President of the Nurses' Association today on a go-forward basis, and now we are being discriminatory.

The fact of the matter is -

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am not going to take a lecture from the Member for Bellevue, on discrimination and fairness. I will say that to the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible) lecture from you either.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am not trying to lecture you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, we have put out our case. I am sure members have the absolute right and privilege to agree or disagree with us, but we have every intention with proceeding with the bill as it exists, and the clauses. I have given our reasons on behalf of the government. We are dealing with a current president and everyone who comes after. We are not in a position to affect change for everyone who has come before her. That is the case, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, I just want to make one further comment here in light of what the hon. Government House Leader just said. I am absolutely amazed, and I am not here to lecture anybody. I firmly believe in logic, and I firmly believe in fairness, and I know that the Government House Leader, in his heart and soul, believes in it. To stand up here and first of all comment about the pay equity, well, I think we all know what happened to the judicial run of the pay equity issue and the recent ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. We know what happened there. The comment, not only from the Government House Leader but I heard other members say it: Why didn't you do it when you were there?

I say, Mr. Chairman, to the people who are negatively impacted by what we are doing here, that is totally, absolutely, irrelevant. The reason why this bill -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: The Member for Trinity North had his comments. Forget those people who are affected. Why didn't you do it when you were in Cabinet? I say to the Member for Trinity North, equity -

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Equity, justice and fairness have nothing to do with what a former Cabinet did not do, or the reasons why a former Cabinet did not do it. The fairness that is being talked about here tonight is treating everybody fair now that we are knuckled down to do the job. There is nobody here disagreeing with the fact that what government is doing here is the right thing - absolutely, let there be no misunderstanding about it - but it is not right and it is not proper when you discriminate against people. It is irrelevant, whether it was ten governments ago that it was looked at and not done. The bottom line is, we are here now to make a decision on it, and the reasons that have been put forward by the Government House Leader do not hold water because you cannot hold water in an argument that just says we are not going to change it because we have made up out mind. We have made up our mind. The only reason we are not going to change it is because we have made up our mind this is what we are going to do. Forget about fairness. Forget about the fact that it discriminates. Forget about the fact that it costs nobody anything, other than the person who might be given the right. It does not negatively impact the government or anybody else. The only reason we are not going to do it is because we do not want to do it.

That, to me, is the ultimate in dictatorial, unfair, unjust, inequitable behaviour, absolutely. We are here, supposedly, to make reasonable, fair suggestions, and I see nothing unfair, unjust, about saying: Let's treat everybody alike. But it is quite obvious that this government - forget about fairness and treating everybody alike - you are saying in this particular case: We are doing it because we made our decision that we are going to do it, and be damned with anybody who might be negatively impacted, even though they are definitely entitled to the same treatment. That is absolutely unjust and not supportable.

I will support the bill for what it does for the current president, absolutely, but I will vehemently deny any support for this being proper in what you have done as a legal act of law in this Province, in Justice. It does not fit.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, just a couple of other comments because my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, just made some very interesting points and they bear repeating.

The only rationale that the government, through the Government House Leader, can now provide in a debate - that is why we have the debate.

MR. BARRETT: Where does the Minister of Labour stand on this?

MR. GRIMES: That is why we have the debate, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARRETT: Let her get up and say.

MR. GRIMES: That is okay, Percy.

That is why we have the debate; because, in fact, Mr. Chairman, I would have thought that these same questions were asked during their own debate. I would have thought so. I wonder which of the members in the caucus opposite asked the question about: Why would you stop at 1996?

The other issue is this, because pay equity has been mentioned a couple of times: to my understanding - it may change into the future, but to my understanding - the only persons who have been President of the Nurses' Union in Newfoundland and Labrador have been women. That is my understanding. I understand that the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, who talked earlier today about the fact that the court decision on pay equity was no great triumph for women, was sitting behind the Government House Leader when we were asking him to consider retroactivity back to some logical date.

I can understand if he could stand up, if someone on behalf of the government could stand up, and say: We cannot go back retroactively because it is going to cause a liability to the pension plan.

They all acknowledge, by the way, that is not a factor; that is not even a consideration. This is financially and fiscally neutral. Everybody understands that. This is no cost, no liability, to the government. This is a choice for the President of the Nurses' Union, who happens to be a woman, and has been in every instance to my knowledge. There is an opportunity to confer an additional financial benefit upon a group of women, at no cost whatsoever to the government. No cost whatsoever to the government.

This government, by the way, the current government, is being challenged by the union on the pay issue to say, even though the courts ruled the way they did, that you could if you wanted to. The court did not say that you cannot pay the pay equity retroactively; it says you do not have to. It did not order that you cannot pay it. It says you are not obligated to pay it retroactively; and this government, I think, has already told the unions: We are not going to pay it retroactively because it would cost us a lot of money and we do not have it.

I guess some people understand that, because that is why, when I was in the government, we did not pay it at a certain point in the first place, because we did not have the money, but this is not a money issue.

I am surprised that the Member for Humber Valley is actually over there taking some offence that I am even making this argument on behalf of women. She finds it hard to believe that I am making this argument on behalf of women. Why didn't she make the argument herself, on behalf of women who are in the same profession that she was in - nurses? Nurses, all women, a chance to confer the option for the woman herself just to make the choice. As I said earlier, it is going to cost those women a bunch of money. It is not government money; it is their own money that they have to decide whether or not they spend it themselves and invest it into a pension plan in order to get a benefit when they retire.

Obviously, from the reaction, there was not a single soul in that caucus who even raised the issue or championed the cause. Not that I can see. I am looking at a few people who are feeling a little uncomfortable, because I understand -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, I say it again: Why, now that it has been pointed out - because my assumption is, obviously, this was not discussed in their Cabinet or their caucus as a choice or an option. It is being discussed here now, in an open debate in the Legislature, and there has been no good, logical, defensible reason given as to why, now that it has been brought to light, we would not want to change this. It only takes a couple of minutes to draft up the amendment, draft it, take a different effective date, because we are going to do it anyway, provide fairness, balance, equity, provide a financial opportunity for three or four women who served the Province extremely well as nurses and as president of their union.

For some reason, the Government House Leader can only provide the rationale that: No, we made up our minds. It is 11:46 in the night and we are not going to change our minds - so we are going to continue on.

I am amazed that the Member for Humber Valley keeps shaking her head in amazement, as if she is wondering why I am saying this. I do not understand why she would not be saying this. I do not understand why the Minister of Government Services does not stand up and say this. I do not understand why the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde isn't standing up and saying this. I do not understand why the minister of industry, trade and rural destruction isn't standing up and saying this. I do not understand why the Member for Topsail isn't standing up and saying this. I do not understand why the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, who was saying to the Government House Leader from her seat a few minutes ago: Don't listen to him. Don't change the bill. Don't do the amendment.

That is what she said. I heard it with my own ears. I do not know what the right version is for good hearing. I don't have 20-20 vision any more but, I can tell you, I have pretty good hearing.

MR. SHELLEY: You are ignorant. Talk about (inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Now, Mr. Chairman, the Member for Baie Verte, from his seat, is saying that I am ignorant and I am an ignoramus because I am standing up asking why we cannot be fair to women. Now, that is the attitude, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Here we are now at midnight, and maybe these are the kinds of things that happen at midnight, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Maybe these are the kinds of things that happen at midnight in a user family-friendly Legislature.

Now, why won't a couple of the members stand up and talk to us in this Legislature openly and on the public record about the debate that they had in their own caucus over this, and why they support the notion that 1996 makes sense but 1981, when the Pooled Pension Plan was actually put into a fund, does not make any sense?

The Member for Baie Verte, suggesting that I am ignorant and an ignoramus because I only singled out certain members and not all of them, I wonder what he said in the debate about why 1996 makes sense.

MR. SHELLEY: You know, don't you?

MR. GRIMES: I do not know because I do not think there was a debate, you see. I am pretty sure, as a matter of fact, that there wasn't a debate. I believe that they are hearing it now, these questions being raised again, unfortunately, for the first time, Mr. Chairman, for the very first time. Again, I guess I would almost beg the Government House Leader and the government caucus and the members who are here to give us some other reason, other than we have made up our mind and we are not changing it. Now, that is not much of a reason as I see it. So, why not defend it?

I wonder what the Member for St. John's West would say about it, or what she said in the caucus, about why there wasn't an opportunity provided for the nurses, who are all women, to at least be given the option to decide if it is in their best interest. They will make up their own minds, by the way. They have a personal decision to make as to whether they make an investment in their futures with monies that they will have to pay today; but, no, the government has made up its mind, we are told, that it is only going to apply back to 1996. They do not care what anybody else says. They do not care if it is fair or not. There is no financial liability to the government, none whatsoever, and they are going to sit in their seats, sit on their hands, not say a word, and let an injustice be done.

They will talk about - the other defence is: You did not do it when you were there. No, we did not. Does that make it right? Is that your argument? Does that make it right, I ask the Member for Trinity North? Does that make it right? Of course it does not. It does not make it right. Now we have a chance to do it, and the government should be applauded for it, so what do we have instead of being applauded tonight? We have a serious question being raised, and the Member for Humber Valley laughing at it again.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that his time for speaking has expired.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will be back again to continue the debate.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to say a few words on this issue because it was presented, I think, initially - and perhaps it was presented to the caucus this way, too - as a request to deal with an anomaly with respect to the incumbent. I suspect that is the kind of discussion that went on in the caucus as well. This is something being done in dealing with the current incumbent who, after all, has been there for eight years and has been unable to participate in the pension plan by virtue of being the president of the union.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that is probably the way that they talked about it in the caucus as well, that we have a situation where the President of the Nurses' Union has been in the position for eight years, has not been able to pay into the pension, and is probably going to suffer financially for representing her members as president of the union. I suppose, if they were probably being fair and honest over there, they probably did not think of it the way that it was just talked about by the Leader of the Opposition. So, I am going to accept that. In fact, I would have to even acknowledge that perhaps I did not think about it that way either, when it was presented by the Government House Leader as something that needs to be done to fix the problem; all in favour of fixing the problem, but let's think it through.

What is discrimination? Discrimination is treating one group of people or one class of people differently from another. Here we have an example of what is known as systemic discrimination. It just happens, Madam Chair - we have a situation where the President of the NTA since 1972, said the Leader of the Opposition - by the way, the presidents of the NTA have been mostly male. I would not call it a male dominated position but they have been mostly male. I remember Pat Cowan was the President of the NTA. There may have been other female presidents of the NTA. I do know Pat Cowan was, and she sat here in this House afterwards as well. While she was President of the NTA she had the advantage, as a full-time President of the NTA, to participate in the teachers' pension plan just as did all her male counterparts before and since.

We have had the same situation with the Newfoundland Association of Public Employees. They have had the situation where their presidents, almost entirely male, I believe they were all male -

AN HON. MEMBER: Except one.

MR. HARRIS: Except one. Elaine Price was President. Was she ever President of NAPE? I do not know if she was ever President of NAPE. She was President of the Federation of Labour. I do not know if there was special provision to allow her to continue to participate in the pension plan, but, again, using the examples of NAPE and the NTA, mostly males - except for one exception in the NTA that I know of and that was Pat Cowan. They all had advantage of this particular provision which makes a lot of sense, this treatment.

Now we have, on the opposite side, a group of nurses. I see the Member for Humber Valley over there paying close attention as a registered nurse herself. She knows. She was a union member. Her current president - in fact, going back about four or five or six presidents of the Nurses' Union there was only one male. I think he was only there for a year, I am told. That was Max Bishop. All of the others have been female. Now, I do not know when they started having full time presidents. Maybe the Member for Humber Valley can enlighten us on that when she participates in this debate. How long have there been full time presidents of the Nurses' Union? Because each and everyone of these women, and the one man, have not been able to take advantage of continuing on in their pensionable service and continuing to participate in the Public Service Pension Plan while they were a full time president. This can mean a lot of money, depending on how long you are there. Your three or four years of pensionable service can make a difference as to when you can retire, or what your salary is going to be when you retire, what your income for your family is going to be when you retire, what kind of life you are going to be able to live. So, it is very important. It is very important.

I think what we have identified here is obviously very important to the current incumbent because it is eight years. Eight years is a long time of pensionable service that if you are unable to contribute to your pension -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Others have had as much as five, I am being told over here.

I think it is especially important for the Minister of Employment to be vigilant about these issues because she is also the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women. She did say something today in the House when I asked a question - I got it from Hansard because I went and got it. Even when she was complaining about the debt, she said, "We are actually worse than we were in 1990, but, I will say to the hon. member, that is no excuse for the fact that women were discriminated against." That is her quote. That is a quote from her this afternoon. It is in Hansard. This is the hot off the press version I got about 4 o'clock this afternoon. This is what she said today when I asked her: Will the government straighten out the anomaly, reverse the decision to take away pay equity? She said, "...our fiscal situation right now gives us a debt of $11.5 billion. That means for every man, woman and child... their share is - she had the number down to the dollar - $22,142." She was ready for it. She knew exactly what she was going to say. We are in no better financial position today than we were in 1990. We are worse. But I will say to the hon. member, that is no excuse for the fact that women were discriminated against.

Well, it has been suggested and it has not yet been refuted - I think it is right. I heard the Leader of the Opposition say it. I did not hear anyone else say no over there. I did not even see any shaking of - they only nod or shake their head over there, they do not speak. I did not see any heads shaking back and forth over there when he said: It is not going to cost the taxpayers a cent to do this the right way. We have an opportunity, Madam Chair, we do not have to worry about the $11 billion of debt. If it is an actuarial determination, it is not even going to add to the unfunded liability but it will offer an opportunity for the women who were presidents of the Nurses' Union, the female presidents of the Nurses' Union, the mostly female - and I think it is a female dominated category, because nursing is a female dominated category. There might be a number of men. I think there might be as many as 4 per cent or 5 per cent of nurses are men, but that is not the point. It is a female dominated profession therefore the president is a female dominant position and that is what fits the definition of systemic kind of discrimination.

It is an opportunity, as the Member for Grand Bank suggested, an opportunity to right a wrong and to say that we will ensure that the women who were presidents of their union during the last number of years - and I do not know when they first started having full-time presidents. I do not know when that was. The Charter of Rights goes back to 1983. So if we are going to be retroactive in terms of rights-based discrimination, at least it should go back to there. Although the former Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, says that the NTA presidents, mostly male, have had the benefit of that since 1972.

I think, Madam Chair, there is an opportunity here to put an end to that discrimination, to offer the same opportunity to other women - and the one man who was President of the Nurses' Union - as is offered and has been offered all along to the presidents of NAPE and the President of the NTA. That is a very straightforward position. It is one that has been suggested, without any contradiction, would cost the Province any money and would allow for the kind of fairness that is inherent in the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that I would hope and expect that all members of this House, not just the women but I hope all members of this House, would support.

There are lots of opportunities in this House to give lip service to equality and to human rights and to all of these things. There are not many opportunities to actually put the equality provisions into effect, particularly if there is no cost involved, so I would urge members to indicate their support for this kind of change. It is something that can be done, and we can do it here and it will not cost any money - not that it is the only answer. I agree with the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, that is no excuse not to do it, even though she did not make any commitment to fix the anomaly with respect to the pay equity deal, but -

MADAM CHAIR (S. Osborne): Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his speaking time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is all the more reason why we should do it, because we now have an opportunity to do something real on the issue of discrimination.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Chair, Bill 65, the Committee reading on the House of Assembly Act.

MADAM CHAIR: Bill 65, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act." (Bill 65)

CLERK: Clause 1.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the title of the bill carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall I report the bill passed, without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Bill 57, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act, in Committee.

MADAM CHAIR: Bill 57, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act.

CLERK: Clause 1.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Clause 3.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 3 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 4 to 18.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clauses 4 to 18 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 4 through 18 carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the title of the bill carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 57 carried, without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MADAM CHAIR: It is moved that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM 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 (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's West and Deputy Chair of Committees.

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 52, Bill 56, Bill 57 and Bill 65 passed without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed her to report Bill 52, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997; Bill 56, An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act; Bill 65, An Act To Amend The House of Assembly Act; and Bill 57, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act, passed without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the said bills be read a third time?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted, bills ordered read a third time presently, by leave. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Before the hon. the Government House Leader speaks, I have to ask if there is consent of the House, because we have done Committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Consent has been granted.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move third reading of Bill 52, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 52, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 52 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 52)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 52)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move third reading of Bill 56, An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 56, An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 56 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act. (Bill 56)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 56)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to move third reading of Bill 65, dealing with the House of Assembly Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 65, An Act To Amend The House of Assembly Act, be now read a third time.

It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 65 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The House of Assembly Act. (Bill 65)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The House of Assembly Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 65)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move third reading of Bill 57, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 57, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 57 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act. (Bill 57)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before we move on, just to conclude and adjourn debate for this evening, there are a couple of housekeeping matters that I want to take care of.

Earlier when the Opposition House Leader gave me leave to introduce some bills there was one I forgot to introduce for first reading because I wanted to make sure that you got the bill. I do not know if it will be ready tonight but it will certainly be over to your office tomorrow, and that is first reading of Bill 61, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act. I want to move first reading, if that is okay? That way we can get the bill distributed, which will be debated for next week.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, Bill 61.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act," carried. (Bill 61)

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act. (Bill 61)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 61 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, Motion 2. To ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists, be read a first time. (Bill 43)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists. (Bill 43)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, "An Act To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists," carried. (Bill 43)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a first time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Provide For the Registration of Lobbyists. (Bill 43)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 43 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I move adjournment of debate, I do want to give notice, according to Standing Order 11, that on Monday the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. and give further notice, according to Standing Order 11, that it not adjourn at 10 o'clock.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader for the adjournment motion.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank members for a good parliamentary day; interesting debate on a number of subjects. I do now move that the House adjourn until Monday at 1:30.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that this House do now adjourn until Monday at 1:30 in the afternoon.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

This House is now adjourned until Monday at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

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