May 19, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 29


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit Strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for St. John's West, the hon. the Member for Bellevue, the hon. the Member for Port au Port, the hon. the Member for Port de Grave, the hon. the Member for St. John's North, and the hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate several youth in the District of St. John's West who will be receiving the Duke of Edinburgh's Award in the next couple of weeks.

Sarah Dyke, Kyle Howlett, Garrett Wells, Michael Westcott and Lisa Woodrow will all be presented with the Silver Award next weekend by the Lieutenant Governor of the Province in a ceremony in Stephenville. While Niraj Skukla will receive the Gold Award the following Wednesday from His Royal Highness, The Earl of Wessex in a ceremony in St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, the Duke of Edinburgh program promotes self-development and community involvement among youth. Participants must meet certain criteria and doing so requires a great deal of hard work and dedication - qualities that will, undoubtedly, help these young people excel in their future endeavours.

It is a wonderful accomplishment to receive the Duke of Edinburgh Award, Mr. Speaker, and I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating these deserving award recipients.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bellevue district.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a talented student from my district who has been honoured now for a second time for her skills in public speaking.

Mr. Speaker, Denika Cox, a Grade 11 student at St. Joseph's All Grade School in Terrenceville, recently won a speak-off sponsored by the Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador Lions Club.

At the Lions Multiple District Speak-off held May 14, in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Denika placed first runner-up. Also competing at this event were speakers from the four Atlantic provinces and Maine.

Mr. Speaker, everyone in Terrenceville are so very proud of Denika for her achievements and we assure that she will continue to achieve academically into the future.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to recognize and thank the Lions Club for sponsoring these competitions and for encouraging today's youth to speak out on issues which they feel are so important. I congratulate Denika on her achievement at this speak-off and ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in wishing her the best of luck as she continues her education.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of two young people from my district.

Melissa Foley of Stephenville High was recently named Female Athlete of the Year. This honour was well deserved as she excelled in three sports at advanced levels in 2004. In soccer, she was part of the Under 16 Team that won the regional tournament and competed in the provincial tournament, where she won the Most Valuable Player for her team. She was also a member of the Stephenville High School soccer team that won gold at regionals and silver at the provincial tournament.

Melissa has been a member of her school's 4A Softball Team for three years. Last year she won gold at regionals and bronze in the finals.

In volleyball, she was a member of the school team that won gold at regionals and silver at the provincials. Melissa was also named the Junior Female Athlete of the Year for 2004 at Stephenville High School.

Thomas Bailey, who took the Male Athlete of the Year Award, is a young man and a high level performer in a number of sports.

In track, he won an individual gold medal in the Three Thousand Meter run at the 2004 Newfoundland and Labrador Summer Games and was a member of the Western Newfoundland male team that won gold. Thomas also won a gold medal in cross country running in the zone championships.

In hockey, he was a member of the Stephenville Midgets A provincial champs and the Southwestern Newfoundland Bruins that were provincial AA midget champs. He is captain of the Stephenville High Spartans that won gold in the 4A zone.

In soccer, he played for the Western Under 18 Team and the Stephenville High team that played at the 4A Provincials. He also plays broomball and is a member of the Stephenville Tae-Kwon-Do Club where he holds second dan black belt and is five times a provincial champion.

Thomas has achieved his bronze cross and bronze medallion in swimming and he also plays floor hockey.

Mr Speaker, I would ask members of the House to join with me in congratulating these two award winners.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I rise to congratulate a ball hockey team from my district who recently took home a provincial championship.

Mr. Speaker, the Ascension Collegiate Astros boys ball hockey team recently captured the first ever Provincial High School Ball Hockey Championship. The team hosted the championships on May 7 and May 8 at the school in Bay Roberts. Eight teams from around the Province took part in this highly successful tournament.

The Astros advanced to the finals by beating Exploits Valley High in an overtime win. In the hard-fought final game they defeated Harriet Curtis Collegiate from St. Anthony.

Mr. Speaker, goal scorers for the Astros in the final game were: Robert Slaney with two; Jeremy Mercer; and Brian Penny.

Fred Simms promotes high school ball hockey at his school for years and is ever so proud to coach his boys to this provincial championship.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the Ascension Astros on winning the 2004-2005 provincial ball hockey championships, and in wishing much success to both their athletic futures, and in their studies.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations to a young constituent, Ashlee Forward, a seventeen-year-old student doing Level III at Prince of Wales Collegiate in St. John's.

Next week, at a ceremony to be held in Stephenville, Ashlee will receive her Silver Duke of Edinburgh's Award. The Duke of Edinburgh's Award, Young Canadian Challenge, is a self-development program designed to help young people between the ages of fourteen and twenty-five with life skills to make a difference to themselves and their communities.

Participants undertake a program of leisure-time activities and have to meet prescribed standards in four areas, namely: community service, wilderness expeditions, physical fitness and skill development. Ashlee actually qualified for her Silver Award in April 2004, but could not attend the award ceremony because she was taking part in the national bowling championships; this will give you an indication that she is a very busy and involved young lady.

Mr. Speaker, this program provides valuable leadership training for young people the world over. It is a great contribution to developing leaders of tomorrow. Ashlee Forward will undoubtedly be one of those leaders, and I ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating her on her Silver Duke of Edinburgh's Award and our best wishes for a bright future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I rise to acknowledge the impressive accomplishments of a young man from the District of Bonavista North. Jeffrey Blackwood of Greenspond has recently received the Special Directed Activities Cadet Scholarship award valued at $1,000. Every year one individual in each cadet unit across the country is presented with this award based on their overall performance as a cadet and their academic performance in the previous year. This year, Warrant Officer Blackwood was the deserving recipient.

In addition to his achievements with the cadet organization, this young man has also recently received a $500 performing arts scholarship. The scholarship was presented by the Seabird Theatre Festival in recognition of Jeffrey's outstanding contribution to the arts in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

This young man's abilities and energy seem to have no end, and somehow between his involvement in the cadets, the high school and the local arts scene, Jeffrey has found time to become a licensed Eucharist Minister in the Parish of Greenspond-Newtown-Pound Cove. His commitment to his community is unparalleled and he has spent time as a volunteer with the local Lions Club and canvassed for the CNIB and Red Cross.

Jeffrey does not waste time talking about what he is going to do. He simply goes out and does it. He does look for praise and recognition. He simply wants to help make his home a better place.

I believe this young man should receive some praise for his efforts, and I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating Jeffrey Blackwood on his accomplishments within the cadet organization and his outstanding contribution to his community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

 

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform hon. members about recent discussions between government and FPI Limited regarding its proposal to restructure its U.S. marketing operations and sell 40 per cent of this entity through an income trust.

The government's view is that there is legal uncertainty surrounding whether the FPI proposal contravenes the FPI Act. The act serves as a mechanism to protect the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador in regard to the affairs of FPI Limited.

Mr. Speaker, this government takes very seriously our commitment to protect and revitalize rural Newfoundland and Labrador. As FPI has a significant presence in many of our rural communities, government has been vigilant in monitoring this process since FPI announced its intentions.

We have been in constant contact with the company, as well as meeting with representatives from affected communities. Our main priority is to act in the best interests of those communities, plants and workers which are directly or indirectly impacted by FPI.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of recent discussions has been to identify additional commitments which FPI would be prepared to make in order to raise the certainty that the income trust transaction is in the best interests of the Province.

The government has told FPI that it may be prepared to lay these commitments before the House and allow a free vote on a bill which would approve or disapprove the income trust transaction. At the current time, the government has not reached a decision on whether the commitments are adequate to bring a bill before this hon. House.

Mr. Speaker, we undertake that we will conclude this assessment quickly and then advise members of this House and the public whether the House will be reconvened in the very near future to consider this matter.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the advance copy of the statement.

The most amazing part, I guess, to me, and for ourselves as the Opposition, is that the Premier managed to read a line like this one and keep a straight face with respect to FPI. He said, with a straight face: Our main priority is to act in the best interests of those communities, plants and workers which are directly or indirectly impacted by FPI.

I would think, Mr. Speaker, that the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the people in Harbour Breton would be pleased to know that every single member on the opposite side just applauded that. That is how much they protected Harbour Breton, Mr. Speaker; and I am sure the people in Fortune are glad that the members on the government side all applauded that the government has done a great job of protecting their interests with FPI in the community of Fortune to date.

Mr. Speaker, it is far too little, far too late. It is crystal clear that what should have happened is that the Premier should have taken the same starting point with FPI about the income trust that the Minister of Natural Resources took with Abitibi when he said there would be no energy development unless there are two machines in Grand Falls. The starting point with FPI should have been, there will be no consideration of an income trust unless you leave the plants in the communities where they are today in Harbour Breton and Fortune.

The horse is already out of the barn, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There has been a great deal of concern in this Province about the commitment of FPI to the Province and, not only that, their ability to deliver on that commitment if this income trust situation goes forward.

Last fall, we had the same sort of information, that there were varying opinions. The Opposition has yet to be made available of those opinions, but we an judge for ourselves any assessment that the government has.

Mr. Speaker, there is a quota of fish allocated to Harbour Breton that FPI has control over. No attempt has been made to ensure that this quota will stay in the community of Harbour Breton to allow that plant to operate. One hundred families have already left. Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested. Has leave been granted.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One hundred people have already left and other families are planning to leave. There is no hope yet in store for what The Telegram calls a test case for rural Newfoundland and for this government. We don't want to see a tradeoff here either, Mr. Speaker, Harbour Breton for the income trust. What we want to see is a commitment from a company that was created by government action that should be serving the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, no more and no less.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform hon. members of the House about an event that will be held next week that will help local companies do business with various levels of government in Newfoundland and Labrador.

On May 26, the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, together with the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, Newfoundland and Labrador Division, will host a Supplier Development Seminar in St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, each year the provincial and federal governments and their agencies, along with municipal governments and organizations such as schools and hospitals, buy millions of dollars worth of goods and services. My department believes that local businesses, wherever possible, should have an opportunity to supply these goods and services. Accordingly, we have in recent months held Supplier Development Seminars in Corner Brook, Grand Falls-Windsor, Gander, and now St. John's to ensure that as many local businesses as possible have an opportunity to learn how to participate in providing goods and services to government.

These supplier development seminars provide potential suppliers with an opportunity to meet with government purchasing agents and gain a greater understanding about government purchasing requirements. It allows purchasing agents to gain an understanding of supplier capabilities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

The St. John's seminar will be held next Thursday at the Holiday Inn from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. It will include presentations from the Government Purchasing Agency; the Department of Transportation and Works; Public Works and Government Services Canada; Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation; the City of St. John's; the City of Mount Pearl; the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters; the Health Care Corporation of St. John's; Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and others.

Mr. Speaker, government and government agencies are large consumers of goods and I believe that local suppliers should benefit from these transactions whenever possible. We intend to continue to hold these seminars in other parts of the Province, with the next one to be held in Labrador, to ensure business people are aware of opportunities to do business with government.

Mr. Speaker, this is yet another initiative this government is undertaking to support the development of Newfoundland and Labrador companies and to help them capitalize on business opportunities.

Thank you.

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement today.

Any time there is a supplier seminar, of course, it is of interest to local companies. I notice that the minister has listed off several locations in the Province where these are taking place, and I would like to put a word in to get one in Marystown, on the Burin Peninsula, since the next one now is in St. John's.

I think we all know that what is happening in St. John's is contrary to what is happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, so I would like to have seen the emphasis being placed on rural Newfoundland and Labrador versus being in St. John's.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that this is yet another initiative, it says, by this government to support the development of Newfoundland and Labrador companies. I would like to let the minister in on a secret, if she does not know that this is nothing new, this has been done by the private sector for years. In fact, I recall when the Marystown shipyard in Cow Head held such a supplier seminar down on the Burin Peninsula.

One of the issues, of course, is that when you are looking at supplying departments of governments and agencies of government with services or supplies, it is important to make sure that the specifications are written in such a manner that local companies can, in fact, take advantage of it and they do not end up with specifications that make it impossible for them to compete.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

I will say to the minister, this is indeed a good initiative. It is an initiative, Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Grand Bank said, that has been in place in the private sector for a long time. I have had a lot of involvement in the local area that I represent, Mr. Speaker, with the mining companies holding public forums for local suppliers. Again, we have seen that happen in Voisey's Bay, with a preference given. While this may be new for government to take on this role, I think it is good to see that government is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. COLLINS: The normal question, Mr. Speaker, by leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. COLLINS: Thank you.

It is good to see government get involved and hold supplier forums so that the local businesses can have an opportunity and understand the needs of government in terms of supplies. There are many good paying jobs in the service sector. It is the service sector, in many cases, that provides the stability for the community because there are a lot of jobs that are occupied by them. It is good to see government become involved in this setting as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, our office has been hearing regularly from an individual from Norris Arm, in the District of Lewisporte. This gentleman, Mr. Gerald Higgins, has been raising concerns about the possible linkages between the proximity of power lines and transformers in communities to the development of certain types of cancer in some individuals.

I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: Is he aware of these concerns?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance, President of Treasury Board, and Acting Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, that individual concern I am not aware of. I am just generally aware of the implications where you are close to areas where there could be emissions and so on, the general effect. I have certain knowledge about that in general, but not specific cases. We would not want to deal with a specific case here anyway. It is a policy of the department not to talk about individuals and individual cases.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Higgins gave us permission to use his name. It is not about an individual case. It is about an issue that he is raising as a general problem with cancers and electromagnetic fields.

Mr. Higgins has provided our office with a growing body of evidence - I will pass it over to the minister here later today so he can have a look at it - that he has collected from across Canada and other parts of the world, that show a potential linkage between long-term exposure to electromagnetic fields of power lines and transformers and the development of certain types of cancer.

In light of this growing evidence - which I will send over to the minister, because Mr. Higgins wants him to have it - does the minister have any plans to conduct a review of these concerns?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Like I said initially, I have done fairly extensive reading. I subscribed to a lot of medical publications for the last twenty years. I have read that in numerous articles. I think it was referenced even in the Mayo Clinic one that I read back some time ago. I am fairly familiar, with my background in it, and have some knowledge.

My understanding of this case, while I do not know the details, I understand, I think, it is the same individual who, when the Leader of the Opposition was Minister of Health, asked him to do a study on it. I am wondering if anything was done then. If he has any other information, he can put that with it when he passes it over to us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad to see that the members of the government caucus find this very amusing.

Mr. Higgins -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Higgins, who has given us permission to use his name in this Legislature, has been pursuing this issue for five years. Yes, I have been aware of it for five years, and he is asking the current government, with its new approach, to do a study.

Let me ask this final question. It is a serious issue, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Higgins has conducted a lot of research himself, personally. His wife is currently dying of a cancer that they believe is caused by living under a transformer in the community of Norris Arm, and he has identified various cases from other jurisdictions that appear to give some credence to his concerns.

What I am asking on his behalf today is: Would the minister be at least willing to assign someone to look at this growing body of evidence, which has gotten a lot larger since I heard of it five years ago? I say to the members who are laughing raucously at it, it has gotten a lot bigger since then. He is asking: Could at least somebody be assigned to do a review to see whether a larger scale review study or inquiry is warranted? It is a serious question.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very much aware of the concerns. I live within about 200 metres of a substation myself, I might say to the Leader of the Opposition, so it is not oblivious to me what is happening.

We will take it and take a look at it, if we feel it is necessary to pursue it in any great detail. I will say, though, the Leader of Opposition was the Minister of Health five years ago when he became aware of it - or whenever it was, several years ago - and I do not know what they did with it. If it is so urgent, I have never heard it from him in five years here in this House, if he considers it urgent and he is concerned, but we will take any complaint that has any degree of potential concern. We will take it -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - and we will look at that. Officials who we consider expert officials in it will make a recommendation on whether we should proceed and do something of an extensive nature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Transportation and Works stood in this House on April 7 of last year and said there would be no closure of highway depots. It was later said in this House that we would have thirteen depots with lights on and nobody home.

Mr. Speaker, if the minister is closing the depots, laying off 125 people, and does not plan to contract out, who is going to look after the roads?

By the way, Minister, we received many calls today from workers saying that they are finished after this long weekend. With no workers, no depots and no contracting out, how will road maintenance, signage, line painting and other services be provided in these affected areas?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, anything I said in this House last year we kept. There were no closures of depots last year. This year we proposed a reorganization of our department that would see - not closure - winterization of thirteen additional depots in the Province. Some of those were done years ago, but we are now planning to do thirteen more.

The hon. member is wrong again in terms of his research and the number of people who will be affected. There was an opinion in the beginning that perhaps upwards of 120 or 125 people would be affected. That number is now between eighty and eighty-five and it is currently being worked on, Mr. speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Still, Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, there are a lot of people being sent home.

Mr. Speaker, this government promised in the Blue Book to reduce ferry rates to the cost of road travel. Ferry rates went up last year by 10 per cent and again this year by 5 per cent. The Minister of Finance read the Budget Speech that said no fee increases, yet ferry rates went up shortly after. Minister, when is government going to stop deceiving the people in this Province and cut ferry rates, as you promised?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: The problem with this member and with this Opposition, Mr. Speaker, is what Russell Wangersky said: Look, they wouldn't know the truth if it jumped on them.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that we announced a 25 per cent ferry increase last year. We announced that it would start with 10 per cent last year and go up 5 per cent over the next number of years until it was achieved. Even with doing that, Mr. Speaker, we are subsidizing provincial ferries in this Province today over 90 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why did you put it in the Blue Book?

MR. RIDEOUT: The Blue Book, Mr. Speaker, is only out of whack on a couple of sources, let me tell the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: We have our homework done and we are living up to the commitment in the Blue Book, and the equivalency that we promised in the Blue Book is being delivered to the people of this Province today, with a couple of exceptions that I am now working on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, I guess their Blue Book is shot and I guess a prime example of: Get up, Tom, and heave it out of you.

Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Transportation and Works inform the House of the current status of the Salmonier Correctional Institute property vacated when government closed the facility last year? Will this land be retained for agricultural use or is government considering alternate uses, such as resort development for this land?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: No, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman there are a whole bunch of considerations that have been placed in front of government in terms of the use of that land in Salmonier. Agricultural is one of it, and we are certainly looking at that with a positive view to keeping the land, excellent agricultural land in the agricultural industry and part of the agricultural industry of this Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The federal government sets a quota for crab in the Province, the provincial government sets the rules for processing. The provincial government has issued a new crab processing licence to the region and has set the amount of crab to be processed in St. Anthony. The federal government sets the quota for groundfish in the Province, the provincial government sets the rules for processing groundfish in the Province. Why won't the government be consistent and have the historical, traditional groundfish quota stay and be processed in Harbour Breton?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is articulating the position of the Opposition, than it is radically different from the position that the Opposition took when we debated raw material sharing for seventy-two days in this House of Assembly and outside of this House of Assembly from March 2 until last Thursday or Friday, and certainly over the last number of days. I guess you could say over the last eighty days.

Mr. Speaker, if the Opposition wants government to implement raw material sharing throughout the range of species that is processed in Newfoundland and Labrador, then why don't they just say it? If not, Mr. Speaker, if they are going to condemn us for trying it on a pilot project basis in crab, then do not the next day tell us that we should do it for groundfish on the Connaigre Peninsula.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not saying to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, on a supplementary.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All I am saying to the minister is that we are looking for consistency here. If you are prepared to do it for one group than why aren't you prepared to do it for the other?

To the minister, there is no doubt about it that the Community of Harbour Breton is reeling from the closure of FPI. What I am asking you now then: Are you saying that you are now prepared to do the pilot project in the groundfishery for the Community of Harbour Breton as you did for the pilot project for the Town of St. Anthony?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: A cheap shot. I say to the hon. member, that is a cheap shot, a very cheap shot. I can guarantee you, in the absence of a raw material sharing system that the Town of St. Anthony and the crab license in St. Anthony and the crab plant in St. Anthony would probably get a lot more crab that it is going to get under the raw material sharing system that we propose. I can guarantee you that, Mr. Speaker. Anybody knows that Clearwater that owns 75 per cent of the plant in St. Anthony is about the third biggest fish company in Canada. I suspect they can compete with just about anybody in this Province, if the free market was going to dictate where we went, but that is not where we went

Mr. Speaker, as to the people in Harbour Breton, we have said consistently that we are going to try to do what we can for the people of Harbour Breton. As for raw material sharing, we are trying it on a pilot project in crab. If the Opposition wants us to apply it industry-wide for all species, why don't they stand up, stop talking out of both sides of their mouths, and say what they want. Don't say on crab you don't want to do it, and then say on groundfish that you do want to do it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance's department is engaged in an aggressive program of collecting school tax arrears, most of which are over thirteen years old. In addition to the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues, time is passing, the Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I ask all parliamentarians for their co-operation.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hope it is not our time that is passing.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is engaged in an aggressive program of collecting school tax arrears together with punitive compound interest at the rate of 1.2 per cent per month, ending up near 100 per cent of the original tax owing this year.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen examples of people who own $150 in tax having to pay $1,600, someone who owes $700 or $800 having to pay $4,500, and, in fact, in one case someone owed $2 in tax but had to pay $86, because the rest was interest. They are also grabbing income tax rebates from people.

Will the minister relent on this program and allow people to pay the taxes owing without being shaken down for outrageous interest charges in a very unfair and oppressive system that is being imposed starting this year by this minister?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I cannot see how $2 would grow to $86 with compound interest in that period. I would like to see the math on that one, I might add, with $2 costing you $86.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I will say, on that issue - and I want to make it clear because it has not been articulated in the public - any individual who owed school tax and they could not locate, or lost contact with, there is not a penny of interest on accounts for people with whom they have had no contact. I want to make that clear.

Also, numerous colleagues of mine here have raised this issue and I assured them, and I assured the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi just a couple days ago, that I am taking it under consideration to look at what can be done to address this. It is an issue that has been going for thirteen years under the former government with about one person dedicated to dealing with 128,000 files - absolutely ridiculous.

We are looking at dedicated people to deal with this, deal with it quickly, and we are going to look at avenues to be able to alleviate the burden. We are looking at those particular options here. I have heard it from my colleagues on dozens of occasions here. We are looking at it and we are going to see if something can be done to address this in a reasonable manner on behalf of the people here in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I talked to an individual today who told me that last year they offered to write off half the interest, but this year, now that he has some money to pay it off, said: No, the deal is off. We want it all.

Now, there are an awful lot of arbitrary things going on in the minister's department dealing with this tax. Much of it is unfair. Why will he not just have a total amnesty on the compound interest going back thirteen years, collect the tax - nobody objects to paying the tax - and be done with it? Otherwise, of the $40 million he is trying to collect, $30 million of it is interest, and it is unfair how people are being treated. Will he deal with this in a fair and reasonable way for all those people who are being attacked this way by the government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Out of the amount of money that is out there, we anticipate, even projected, that a very small percentage of this would be collected overall out of what is outstanding. Starting the year, there was over $40 million. That number is going down, but we will certainly look at that.

I said to him, even two days ago, we are dealing with this. We are going to take a look at this. The amount of money collected would have only been in probably the $7 million range anyway, out of the $40 million that is out there, so we are looking at dealing with that $7 million or $8 million. It has gone on far too long. It has gone thirteen years, dealing with this. It is absolutely too long. A lack of proper management and fiscal responsibility of the former government - the Auditor General cited that. We want to deal with it, but we will look at avenues to deal with it in a fair manner, deal with it responsibly, and deal with it as expeditiously as we can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House I put questions to the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development regarding her department's lack of a rural plan. Today, the Conference Board of Canada says this Province has a steadily declining population base and that Newfoundland and Labrador is not expected to generate a lot of new jobs during 2005 since there will be no repeating last year's significant employment gains in the construction, manufacturing and other primary industries, and activity will wind down at the major construction sites. The same points I made yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that the minister shrugged off in her answer.

The minister can ignore the facts if she wants, but she should not ignore the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who want to know when they are going to see some results from this government's much touted but non-existent plan. Where are the much-promised jobs?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr Speaker, we are undergoing a downturn in the oil and gas industry at the moment and that reflects some of the downturn, the loss of jobs. Hebron-Ben Nevis is about ready to come on stream. We will lead the country again in 2007. Besides that, we have an economic diversification plan in place and we have put tools in the hands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to create sustainable economies in their regions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the Minister Responsible for Rural Development is hanging her hat on the oil and gas industry only. What about the fishery? But, then, we know how they have deal with the fishery.

The Conference Board of Canada also says that the large number of layoffs in the public service and education system will have a negative impact on the economic growth of this Province.

Minister, when is your government going to realize that cutbacks are not the answer, and to do something real to address the growing problems facing our rural communities? Twenty-seven hundred people have left this Province since your government took office, and more are leaving daily. Are you going to let the population of rural communities continue to decline?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are tremendous opportunities for economic growth in every region of this Province. If members of the Opposition feel the only way that rural Newfoundland can survive is through government jobs, then we are in a lot more serious trouble than they are saying over there - but that isn't the truth. There are all kinds of opportunities -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: - in mineral development, in agrifoods, in aquafoods, in aerospace, in wind power, other sources of energy. There are enormous opportunities, and now, thanks to this government, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have the tools to exploit those opportunities and build sustainable economies throughout the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister who just sat down, tell the 401 teachers she just fired about the job opportunities there are in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Education.

This government has slashed 401 teaching positions over a two-year period. That is equivalent to laying off more than one teacher a day for every school day in a two-year period.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: How can he say that eliminating 401 teaching positions will not negatively affect the education of our youth, especially those who live in rural areas of our Province? Tell the parents and the students of Pasadena Elementary that teacher cuts will not affect their education.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question from the hon. member, I remind the hon. member that there are challenges in Newfoundland and Labrador, challenges that this government are facing that your government faced.

When we talk about teacher loss, and we talk about seven years, seven years of Liberal Administration, and 1,230 teachers over those seven years, we understand the decisions that you had to make and you must understand the decisions that we have to make.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the challenges facing our education system, challenges that could easily be overcome by leaving those 401 teachers in the system, I say to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, last year this government spent only $8 million of the $12 million allocated for school maintenance and repair. We are now only one month away from another school year ending, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Have tenders been let yet for the much needed repairs to these schools or are you again trying to save money on the maintenance and repair budget like you did last year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again I say to the hon. member on the other side, we had to deal with not only a deficit but a mess, and a mess that you left our schools in. We, this year, took a positive action of $16 million towards the repair of our buildings to make sure that our classrooms are safe and secure for students.

I say to the hon. member: Yes, we are moving forward. We are letting out tenders. The work is being done and it will be done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As to the mess he talks about, in the last four years of our government we spent over $200 million on school maintenance, repairs and construction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, my final question -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues, time is passing quickly.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: A final question for the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government, of which I was a part, built a twenty-bed health care facility on Fogo Island. This government, the current government, saw fit only to open ten of those twenty beds. We now see sick people lying in hallways on stretchers while other elderly sick people are told to go home, we have no beds.

I ask the minister: When is your government going to do what your Premier committed to do during the election, open all twenty beds of the health care facility on Fogo Island?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I answered that question here a couple of weeks ago in the Legislature. I will repeat it again, in case he was not listening here. In case he wasn't listening, I think it was in the Estimates Committee here in this House. I indicated that the Regional Integrated Health Authority is going to look at all people who need assistance and need to be - whether it is hospitalized, whether it is long-term care, whatever the needs are, and they are going to deal with it.

The very member, when he sat in government over here, their government in 1992 paid the highest bidder to build a hospital in St. Lawrence under the Trans City scandal and there are ten beds that have never opened; thirteen years later, there are ten beds never opened to this day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My, my, so much aggression.

My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Works. Minister, on May 5 the Marine Atlantic Advisory Committee made its report public, and I understand you did meet with Minister Lapierre and he provided you with a copy of that report. One of the recommendations in that report, 15.4, recommended that the offices, the headquarters of Marine Atlantic be relocated from St. John's to Port aux Basques. I am wondering if the minister has had an opportunity yet to study the report enough to be in a position to comment as to whether he supports that recommendation or not?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for his question. I did have an opportunity to meet with my federal counterpart and be briefed on the report. There is a lot in the report that we liked from a transportation perspective, from a tourism industry perspective, and I am very pleased to be able to say to the hon. gentleman that this government supports, 100 per cent, the relocation of the headquarters for Marine Atlantic from St. John's to Port aux Basques.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier announced the site for the Corner Brook long-term care facility. He talked about the look on the face of seniors in the area who will have access to the new building. I can tell the Premier that residents from my district who have been waiting for new long-term care facilities in Grand Bank and Conception Bay North have a look of despair and hurt, because their facilities have never been mentioned. Premier, all seniors deserve the same respect and concern.

I ask the Premier: When will he proceed with plans to build the much needed facilities in these two areas of our Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Province has identified three top priorities, and they have been announced. The Corner Book facility - the Premier and the Minister of Justice were there yesterday and made an announcement on that facility. The other facility we have announced is the Clarenville facility. It is a high priority. There are more senior people living in that area than other regions of the Province; a high priority. And we mentioned Happy Valley-Goose Bay. These are the three priorities.

We recognize there are other high priorities out there in the Province. For example, the Carbonear region is one. In fact, the City of St. John's was higher on some of these priority lists than some of the ones that are announced. We do have pressing needs in numerous areas of the Province and what we are going to do as a department - what the department will do is assess those priorities. They will assess the geographies to be able to serve these people.

The Clarenville facility, I say to the member, should be able to service a significant part of your district, too, in that region because it is in close proximity. So, we are going to do what is appropriate and what is best and have care for people and, as time permits us - we are getting there. We made a commitment, Mr. Speaker, which that government never made on long-term care (inaudible) for the Province (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week when the Minister of Education was asked questions about the prevalence of a gambling culture in our junior and senior high schools, I believe all of us were surprised at his answer. He said: There is a responsibility on the part of teachers and staff, who are in these schools, to make sure that any of these activities are addressed. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the minister has checked on this very serious issue.

I ask the minister: What has his department learned about the issue, and can he tell us today that he has advised all schools to ban poker activity on all school properties in our Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response, and we certainly take that type of behaviour in a very serious manner. The question was posed here across the floor last week and, as a result, the officials in my department, in consultation with school board officials, went right throughout the Province. We consulted with the school board officials, we consulted with school officials, administrators and teachers, and we found very little, if anything, in the way of outright gambling going on within our schools. As a result, I can say honestly to you that there is not a problem with gambling in our schools. If there were, it would be dealt with at the school level, it would be dealt with at the board level, and it would certainly be dealt with at the minister's level at the Department of Education.

As well, we know there are difficulties that are in schools that are reflective of what goes on in society, but in this particular case we certainly did not find any need to authorize a ban of that activity in our schools.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I table (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking all members for their co-operation. We are all parliamentarians. We all have responsibility to maintain a form of decorum and parliamentary discipline in our Chamber.

The Chair was recognizing the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. I ask him if he could present his report now, because I believe his mike was turned off.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In case the mike was turned off, I will do it again.

I table reports for the 2003-2004 fiscal year for the C.A. Pippy Park Commission and the Newfoundland and Labrador Municipal Financing Corporation.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table the 2004 Annual Report of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission.

Thank you.

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

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

I rise today to table the Report of Mining Leases, Mineral Licences and Surface Leases Issued for the Period April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2005.

MR. SPEAKER: Tabling of further documents.

Notices of Motions.

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition submitted to me by residents of the Conception Bay North area. Again, I am calling upon the government, and these residents are calling upon the government, to intercede on behalf of Mildred and Clovia Baker.

As I have said before many times in this House, Mildred and Clovia are in wheelchairs, they are fed through feeding tubes, they require assistance breathing, and cannot perform most tasks we take for granted.

Mr. Speaker, these two ladies had twenty-four-hour home care and it was revoked. They have lost five hours a day. They are down now to nineteen hours of home care. Most people in their condition, who are tube fed and in this condition, have adequate hours of home care.

Mr. Speaker, I was e-mailed just a short period of time ago, and the lady says to me, "You are welcome to read this letter in the House of Assembly if you wish. Government representatives may not realize that many people watch the airing of the House of Assembly."

Mr. Speaker, I speak on behalf of a constituent of mine. "It has been brought to my attention that every time you have raised the issue of Mildred and Clovia Baker, which is a concern to many people, family, friends and members of the community, Mr. Sullivan conducts himself in a manner that shows he has no concern for the well-being of the disabled and elderly of the Province."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member will know that, even in written correspondence, we should refer to members of the House by their title or by their district, and I ask the hon. member if he could abide by that usual form of parliamentary decorum.

MR. SWEENEY: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I was reading a document and it slipped by me.

"I do understand that this sort of thing happens among members of the House and sometimes the adults forget that they are representing the people of the Province. But when two people are forced by the government to become shut-ins because of the cut in home care hours and they see this behaviour and reaction from adults with power it becomes very personal.

"I have two children, a 10 year old and a 7 year old, who have more respect for the disabled and elderly of our community than we have witnessed during the airing of the House of Assembly. It may be a non-issue to a lot of people. I can only pray not one of your will have to face the issues and illness that the Baker family has had to endure for the last 40 years to be brought to this point of neglect and discarded by the very people who depend on the votes of these two people and so many others like them."

Mr. Speaker, this is from a person who is very, very concerned about their well-being, and there are other people out there concerned about the well-being of these people. It is touching, it is heart-wrenching, when you see the condition that these two people are forced to exist in.

Mr. Speaker, I call upon the government again today, in the name of humanity, to please look into this situation and reinstate the five hours of home care that was taken from these two ladies.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a large number of residents of our Province concerning VLTs and the affect, negatively, they are having on the people of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I introduced yesterday a list of 1,500 names of people who want to have a say in what happens in our Province with respect to gambling. As this petition was circulating around the Province, and as I was bringing it forward to the House of Assembly, little did we know at that time that we would be faced with another form of gambling that experts say is equally or more dangerous than gambling, and that is in the form of electronic KENO, with a draw every five minutes of every hour of every day.

Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that measures taken in the Budget this spring that froze the number of VLTs in the Province, that is going to reduce them by 15 per cent over the next five years, that provided $750,000 for addiction treatment and addiction awareness - I don't believe it is right at this point in time, with a study being commissioned by this government, that they should allow Atlantic Lottery Corporation to bring in a new form, equally as devastating as VLTs, in the form of electronic KENO, to our Province.

I am asking the Premier and his government to advise the Atlantic Lottery Corporation that this is not going to happen in our Province until a study as confirmed one way or another the gambling addiction problem that we are currently faced with in our Province as a result of VLTs and other forms of gambling that have been allowed to come in over the past number of years.

Government has a responsibility here, Mr. Speaker, to the people of the Province. Part of the job of a government is to serve and protect the people who elect them, and people need protection from this type of activity. This is having a devastating affect on a lot of people in our Province. I have received letters, and I know other members of government have received letters as well, from the families of people who had gone to the extent, were so desperate, Mr. Speaker, that sadly enough they have taken their own lives, as the only way they saw out of their gambling addiction.

I don't believe, Mr. Speaker, that the government, on the eve of commissioning a report into the prevalence of gambling in our Province, should allow the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, with no consultation whatsoever with the people of the Province, to unilaterally bring in a new form of gambling that will bring with it a whole new set of problems. We don't even have any understanding of the magnitude of what they will be.

I am asking government, Mr. Speaker, to inform the Atlantic Lottery Corporation that they will not be permitted to install these machines in the Province, to put them into action - which, by the way, is supposed to happen within the next week or so - until, at least, the report into the prevalence of gambling is made public to the people of the Province and we fully understand what the implications are of having these machines here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 3,000 of my constituents who are calling on the government to continue the replacement health care facility in Grand Bank and, as well, to continue with the decision by the previous government, by the Liberal government, to put a CT scanner at the Burin regional hospital, as well as to put a dialysis unit on the Burin Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, these residents live in an area that, from time to time, can become very isolated. Weather conditions are such that they find themselves cut-off from places like Clarenville and St. John's, making it virtually impossible for them to avail of the services that exist in those other areas. What they are saying to the government is that you must understand that when you need quality medical care, then time is of the essence. And they are saying that for the CT scanner in Burin, if they cannot access that - sometimes because they cannot get off the Burin Peninsula - it could be a life or death situation, Mr. Speaker. So, they are calling on the government to put the CT scanner at the regional hospital in Burin and to put a dialysis unit on the Burin Peninsula.

There was a public meeting held in Marystown, that I referred to yesterday. It was held in Marystown with over 400 people turning out to voice their opinion and to call on the government to put that CT scanner and a dialysis unit on the Burin Peninsula.

I listened to my colleague from Bellevue, when he questioned the Premier about the other two health care facilities, one in Carbonear and one in Grand Bank. The Premier did not take the question but the Minister of Health did, who then went on to say that the government had determined its priorities. Well, Mr. Speaker, the priority for people living on the Burin Peninsula is a replacement health care facility in Grand Bank. It is one where $3.5 million has been put already. We have a structure standing there, but, of course, that is as far as it is because the government decided not to continue with the facility. In fact, the Premier, who promised on three occasions to complete that, has chosen not to do it. I am calling on him to reconsider, to go back and make that commitment again to the people on the Burin Peninsula.

He talked about the reaction he saw in Corner Brook yesterday, the look of happiness on the faces of the seniors who are going to benefit from the new facility in Corner Brook, and I applaud the government for doing that. It is long overdue, but I say to the Premier, as my colleague from Bellevue said, all seniors in our Province deserve the same respect and concern. How you can make chalk of one and cheese of another is beyond me, especially when you have made the commitment on three occasions to the people on the Burin Peninsula, and they are still waiting for that facility to be completed. It is not a new facility, it is not a new service. It is a replacement facility. It needs to go there to replace a facility now where patients are being cared for in a facility that was not designed to care for acute Levels III and IV. It was, in fact, designed to care for people who require Levels I and II.

Of course, the old cottage hospital that exists there, which serves as a clinic, badly needs to be replaced. It is in a deplorable condition and we are calling on the government to live up to the commitment given by the Premier to replace that health care facility, which includes the seniors' home and the clinic, and to put a CT scanner and a dialysis unit on the Burin Peninsula.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Today I want to stand with a petition on behalf of the residents of the Districts of Port de Grave and Bellevue, Carbonear-Harbour Grace, Harbour Main-Whitbourne, and Trinity-Bay de Verde. Some of those petitioners are workers with the Department of Transportation and Works, as well as citizens in the area. It is in reference to the thirteen highway depots that were referenced here earlier today. I guess I am glad, in one sense, that the minister has confirmed that the number will not be 125, as we anticipated in the beginning, but now we are looking at still eighty to eighty-five people who will be affected by this change.

The petitioners are asking that where Premier Williams promised NAPE there would be no layoffs and where they are seeing a downgrading of the services of the roads in those areas, that government should reconsider their plan.

Mr. Speaker, I know some of the issues that are pertaining to my district in particular, and in the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde. I get calls from the workers from both of those districts, calls from residents of the area and, in particular, in relation to the road that links the two districts together. It is called the New Harbour road or New Harbour barrens. A very small portion of that road is in my district, but, I can tell you, that does not lighten my responsibilities in fighting that this road would be considered this year because it joins the two districts together. It provides services for people in my district, as well as Trinity-Bay de Verde, who work back and forth either way and who go there for their shopping and other needs. Mr. Speaker, that particular road is in a terrible condition. Even the workers on the trucks and plows, when they are working on that road they say that the shoulders are gone, the pavement is crumbling on the shoulders, and they find it very difficult and dangerous in the winter when they are plowing the road.

We heard the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace yesterday stand with a petition with 3,000 names on it, with regard to the main road through Harvey Street in Harbour Grace. I have been talking to the people with the department. The upgrading and repairs to the guardrails on the roads and the painting of the lines in my district is something that has not been done now - it was not done last year and I do not think it is in the plans for this year.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I just want to call upon the government to reconsider. I know eight-five people coming out of the system cannot help the cause of improving the road maintenance in that particular area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 445 residents of the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the member, Ms Jones, would certainly have liked to present this petition yesterday but it did not come in until this morning and she is unavailable to be here this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, what these 445 residents are asking for is a replacement vessel for the MV Apollo, the ferry that comes across the Strait of Belle Isle, because, as we all know, that ship or vessel is experiencing engine trouble with one of its engines and it appears that it will not be repaired for a period of six weeks. The individuals who signed the petition feel that they are having trouble making connections on that vessel, because on windy days it does not always run and, as a result, they are not being able to make the trip. Besides just the normal passenger transportation, Mr. Speaker, it is also interfering with the shipment of goods and services to that area.

Mr. Speaker, representing two islands that use ferries, Fogo Island and Change Islands, I certainly can understand the frustration that the people in that area of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair are experiencing right now when their ferry is supposed to be operational and, in fact, it only runs when the weather will permit it, which is not often at this time of the year. So, what they are asking the government and calling upon the government to do is to get a replacement vessel up until such a time that the MV Apollo is repaired and gets put back into service.

So, I call upon the Minister of Transportation and the government to find a replacement vessel as soon as possible so that the people can continue with their normal daily routine. Also, Mr. Speaker, this is the start of the tourism season and the residents in that area, who have businesses, are certainly going to see a loss of business in the next six weeks as a result of this. So, again, I call upon the government to find a replacement vessel until such a time that the MV Apollo is repaired and can be put back into service.

Thank you.

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition here on behalf of the community of Harbour Breton, approximately eight hundred and fifty people signing, asking that the government would maintain a fish quota and enable the community to survive and to prosper.

Earlier today, Mr. Speaker, when I asked the minister a question on the town, he thought the question that I asked somehow was a low blow. Never did I intend to do that; because, I tell you, the situation, as I see it, in the Town of Harbour Breton, is very, very serious. It is devastating to the whole community.

The point that I was trying to make was simply the fact that the people in the community are wondering why they cannot keep their quota that has been processed in the Town of Harbour Breton for the last forty years. That is all we are asking for. We are not asking for a new quota. We are not asking for something from anyone else. The people of Harbour Breton have worked over the last forty years for this, for this company, and they are saying that if FPI, as a company, want to move out of that particular town or that particular region then the quota that has been with the town for the last forty years should stay there.

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult and desperate in the community. Every day there are people leaving. I had the opportunity to talk to one of the people of the action committee again today. I thought I might have had the letter by the time I came to the House, a letter that they have written to the shareholders of FPI. They are very serious. They are looking at the people who are on the FPI Board of Directors from Newfoundland who are businessmen. They are looking at possibly taking some action to target these people, the fact that they think FPI acted very cavalier with their particular community, and they are not going to sit back and take it.

The community is in a crisis situation. It is devastating, where people have had to declare bankruptcy, give back their cars, sell their all-terrain vehicles, have cable disconnected, Internet disconnected, and people who would like to go to Alberta, by the way, to work, do not have enough money to go.

That is a very difficult situation. These people now, this has been about seven months that they have been in this type of a predicament. It is not pretty. It is the worse situation I have seen in the area that I have been representing for about the last sixteen years. It is not only just the community of Harbour Breton; it is the whole region itself.

These people gave me these petitions and I have tried to present them in the best way that I know how, making the point that the community is in a crisis situation. It is a whole region that is devastated. These people are looking to government to try to find a solution for them and realize that if companies like FPI are allowed to pull up stakes, take all of their resources with them and not leave it for the community, then obviously it does not mean well for their community and other communities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me time.

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

 

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of some 3,694 petitioners from Central Newfoundland, the central part of the Island. Most of them are actually residents of the Electoral Districts of Windsor-Springdale and Baie Verte. It is with respect to the issue last year of the mandatory permits for snowmobile regulations for the use of snowmobiles on the trails.

Of course, the petition, organized by Mr. Peter Pelley, who has written a covering letter to the Premier of the Province attaching these 3,694 names, they still want it presented because their understanding is that the promised consultation did not occur, of course, before the legislation was done, as is normal with this government, and now the promised consultation with respect to the regulations - because there were to be some regulations put in place afterwards for possible exceptions and exemptions, and the establishment of fees, and that process apparently has not occurred either. These people are very upset and disturbed with that. They are calling upon the House of Assembly to live to their commitments, to the promises that have been made, that they have heard themselves in the televised broadcast of the Legislature. They have actually heard the ministers make them. They have seen it in writing, they have heard it with their own ears - and again they make the commitment and just do not follow through.

There are 3,694 residents, mainly in these two particular districts. Many of them, by the way, were members of one of the most successful snowmobile clubs in the Province, in the Exploits region in Central Newfoundland, the central part of the Island. Since then - because that club itself bore the brunt of bad government policy, bad legislation, and a broken promise to come out and consult about what the regulations would be, so that people could talk about whether or not there could be an exception or an exemption to go to your cabin on a route that you, yourself, had actually put in place with your neighbours and have been using for twenty-five years, and could you go on that route, if you had to cross the trail, without having to pay a permit? The government said: Oh, we will look in to all of that because that is allowed in Ontario, that is allowed in Quebec. We will send out a committee and we will have a consultation. Guess what they have heard about that since? Absolutely nothing.

The season is over now. Maybe they are still planning on doing that consultation prior to the snowmobiling season next year. This 3,694 people are asking for the government to live to its word. They disagreed with the implementation of mandatory permits for the use of snowmobiles in the first instance. The government ignored their pleas, would not meet with them, did not consult with them, and did it anyway. Then the government promised to at least consult on the regulations about possible exceptions and exemptions.

I guess the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation must have been extraordinarily busy ever since because he has not gotten around to it, and these petitions are asking him to please do so.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am the sixth member here to stand today to give a petition to a government that does not listen. I am the sixth person to stand here today, and every petition that was entered by a member on this side was to make government aware that a promise they had made, they had not kept.

I am going to be the sixth one here today to tell the Minister of Natural Resources that he made a promise to the people of our Province, and particularly to Central Newfoundland, on May 4, that he would not enter into negotiations with Abitibi-Consolidated until he had a commitment for a two-machine operation in the Grand Falls mill. But, you know, he broke that commitment on May 4. Usually there are a few days in between, or a month or two, but our Minister of Natural Resources decided to break that commitment after two days, after the Premier came back in town and told him: Don't get out too far, now, promising something you can't deliver.

Well, he delivered it, and we believed it, but now he is going back on his word. It is interesting, you know, Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask one of the Pages, when I am done here, to deliver to every government member an ad that was in The Western Star, and that was October 25, 2003. Abitibi-Consolidated took out a half-page ad, and they put it in The Western Star. It was three days after the provincial election, when the new government, the Progressive Conservative government, got elected, and they are now our current government. It was unusual, because I have never seen this before. It was Abitibi-Consolidated in Stephenville, and they took out a half-page ad, and it was to remind your MHAs to honour their commitments to resolve our critical issues at the mill, the mill in Stephenville, and they asked them to do two things. Government has two critical tasks before it, and they asked them to have a timely resolve to address the issue of power and fibre at the Stephenville mill. Across the side of the ad there was a caption there and it was in big, bold letters: You've got my commitment. It was signed by Danny Williams.

Now, that is an unusual ad to have in a newspaper three days after an election. I have never seen it in all my years. It is unusual, and I want all government members to have a look at it because the Premier made a commitment, although I don't see any action on that commitment to date.

I also have to say that the Minister of Natural Resources made a commitment to the people of Central Newfoundland. He is an honourable minister and he said he will stand to Bill 27, which I expect him to do. It is law in this Province. He made another commitment, and I don't know how he can look me straight in the face when he knows that he broke that commitment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will have another opportunity later in the afternoon.

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a couple of hundred people who use the Frenchman's Cove provincial park on the Burin Peninsula. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is the only provincial park on the Burin Peninsula, and at one point it was in danger of not being included among the Province's provincial parks, but we fought that one and it still remains a provincial park today. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it can't provide the services that they want to provide for not only the tourists who visit the park but the locals as well. The Friends of the Park have made a concerted effort to try to improve that park. They have worked very hard trying to ensure that the facilities are there to attract tourists, but as well facilities that will make camping for them something they want to do with their families. They spend a lot of time at that park. It is a park that is heavily utilized by the Friends of the Park and people on the Burin Peninsula, again since it is the only provincial park on the Burin Peninsula.

The one thing that is lacking there is a dumping station, and of course we all know how important that is to anyone, especially if you are driving an RV or if you are driving any kind of camper, or for anyone who is camping there, the importance of a dumping station to those who go and stay at that park. They are calling on the government to recognize this as an important feature that they need to add to this provincial park. They know that other parks in the Province have such a facility, and they want to bring the Frenchman's Cove provincial park up to provincial standards. They think that with the inclusion of a dumping station that will, in fact, happen.

At present, they are finding the fact that there is not one there deters tourists. In fact, when they inquire whether or not there is a dumping station there, and there isn't, they have a tendency to move on and look elsewhere. Being, it is the only provincial park on the Burin Peninsula, the Friends of the Park feel that if they, in fact, had that dumping station it would enhance that park to the point where you would find more people utilizing it, and therefore make for a much more viable park and more people, of course, using it, not only the locals but the tourists as well.

They are calling on the government to acknowledge that this is a provincial park, and in acknowledging it, acknowledge as well the need for a dumping station. They have the showers and that there. They were put there a couple of years ago. That really brought the park up to another standard. Now they are asking that a dumping station be included so that we can see the park become that much more viable, and not just for people who live in the area, but for the tourists as well.

Of course, it is adjacent to Grande Meadows Golf Course. We know that a lot of people who utilize the golf course also utilize the provincial park, and vice versa. What they are saying is that this is a key component to the entire tourism success on the Burin Peninsula and it will be a shame not to see that grow. That is why they are calling on the government to acknowledge that this is key to the tourism success on the Burin Peninsula and to put in place a dumping station so that it will add to both, not only the park, but to the golf course as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today on another petition. Before I start this one I want to say for the record, there were fifty-eight pages of people who signed that petition from Central Newfoundland; right from Buchans to Leading Tickles. So, there are a lot of people concerned about that situation. That was over 1,000 people since Monday. This is only Thursday.

Today I stand, again - it is too bad I am not allowed to say who is not in this House. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I stand today again to ask for funding to repair the Buchans highway.

Yesterday the Minister of Transportation and Works and I had a lot of dialogue across the House. A bit of a shouting match by some people's estimation, I am sure. He, at that time, told me that he had asked his director to give him a report on the condition of the Buchans highway. Now two weeks is a long time to get a report on the Buchans highway, but, I mean, he had that report two years ago and he did nothing with it. He did nothing with that report.

You know, the funny part about that, the Minister of Transportation and Works is a rural Cabinet minister. They are rare in this particular Cabinet. We have four, what are so-called rural Cabinet ministers, out of fourteen. Now, I know there has been a lot of jockeying going on in the backbenches this session and hopefully some of the rural members will get a chance to get into Cabinet before too long. For a minister who is a rural minister, the Minister of Transportation and Works, he would certainly understand. He grew up in La Scie or Baie Verte and spent most of his life there. He would understand that on the Buchans highway, which is 105 kilometres off the Trans-Canada Highway, certainly has to have a road that is in good condition.

Do you know something? The Minister of Transportation and Works, the only money that was announced so far this year was for repairs and new construction of highways on the Baie Verte Peninsula where he grew up - and he has a Cabinet colleague who sits in the front row. So, I am sure he understands the necessity of repairing rural roads, unless it is the government's plan to close down services to rural Newfoundland, shut out services so people will have to move. Well, the people of Buchans decided not to move in 1984 when their mine closed, and they have been living there ever since.

As a previous government, when I was the member and minister, I made sure that highway repairs were done every year. You cannot cut off these people, Mr. Minister. You cannot cut off services to these people, 105 kilometres off the Trans-Canada Highway. There are ambulances coming down, there are children going to school, there are heavy equipment travelling over it to go to the new mine at Duck Pond. There is all kinds of activity. People have to get to and from work, and doctors appointments. So, if you have any heart and if you want - I heard your Premier last night trying to stand up -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Can I have leave for a few seconds?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.

MR. E. BYRNE: A few moments to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A few moments to finish up your comments.

Leave has been granted.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I heard the Premier last night on Open Line saying how he has great interest in rural Newfoundland and he will make a great effort to do all he can for rural Newfoundland. Well, I say, Mr. Premier and Mr. Minister of Transportation and Works, this is your opportunity. Put your actions into words and dollars and get that work done!

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

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

Before we get to the remainder of the legislative program for the day, I want to just move Motion 1, and that is pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, and I also want to move Motion 2, pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I believe we are going to begin this afternoon with second reading of a bill, Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn today at 5:30 of the clock.

All those in agreement, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

It is further moved and seconded that this House not adjourn today, Thursday, May 19, at 10:00 p.m.

All those in agreement, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

I do believe that it was Order 7. It is moved and seconded that the House - second reading of Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act to Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act." (Bill 35)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to Bill 35, an amendment to the Buildings Accessibility Act.

We are not reducing our commitment to building accessibility. We are only changing the timing of inspections to address a backlog issue during peak construction periods. The accessibility requirements are unchanged and the building plans must still be submitted and approved by the department before construction can begin. We are amending one section of the legislation to remove a mandatory inspection prior to occupancy. All projects will be inspected, either during construction, before occupancy or as soon as possible thereafter, based on our scheduling commitments in various areas.

Government is committed to enforcing the requirements for accessibility and ensuring everyone has adequate access to public buildings. This will only permit some buildings to be occupied prior to a final inspection so businesses or occupants can move in without an unreasonable delay. Where possible, preoccupancy inspections will continue to be conducted and the department will work with the construction industry to ensure compliance. All projects will be inspected at some stage. The department can still set preoccupancy restrictions on any construction project if there is a concern. The building plan approval may include a condition for a final inspection before occupancy.

Building owners and contractors must meet the accessibility requirements or they will have to undertake corrective actions at their own expense. Although a final inspection for building accessibility may no longer be required prior to occupancy, the requirements for accessibility and the commitment of government to their enforcement will not change. Government is also living up to its commitment to reduce red tape associated with doing business by allowing some flexibility on building occupancy and ensuring the most efficient use of resources.

Consultation on additional amendments to the legislation, as recommended by the Building Accessibility Advisory Board, will be held over the next few months with the resulting amendments being brought forward in the fall. I ask for your support on this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Looking at Bill 35, it is certainly not the intention of the members over here to be against this bill with regard to any initiative, I guess, that will guarantee people with physical disabilities the opportunity to improve themselves and to improve access to buildings and so on. As a matter of fact, I think this will probably make things in the construction industry happen a little bit faster and so on.

The only concern that I do have, though, Minister, is the number of people who are presently in the workforce of government, and what reduction this would have on our union members in government, for the municipalities to issue permits rather than go to Government Service Centres. If this is a trend that continues, I am sure that the members of NAPE and our public sector union would have some comment on that, because - I know you are going to say, to help speed up the process.

The other point that I have here, too - and it may be a indication, for this bill to be amended in such a way, that there are already too many cutbacks in your department. I think the one that comes to my mind most of all is the gone fishing sign on the West Coast, when somebody went in to get an electrical permit and the electrical inspector had taken three weeks vacation and there was a sign there basically saying: Gone fishing.

It is that sort of thing that I am leery of; but, other than the intent of the act here of improving the Buildings Accessibility Act, the members here on this side of the House certainly have no objections, other than the fact of a possible reduction in unionized positions and a reduction in the workforce of government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am rather surprised that the minister and, in fact, the Official Opposition, seem to regard this bill as an improvement to the accessibility provisions of the act. In fact, three sections of the act are being amended here. One of the sections is section 6 of the Buildings Accessibility Act, and the current act - section 6 of the current act that is being amended - one of the things that is happening here is that section 6.(3) is being removed entirely. Section 6.(3), and the title is called Prohibition, says, "A permit to occupy a building shall not be issued until an inspector makes a final inspection and states in writing that he or she is satisfied that the building complies with the requirements of this Act and the regulations." It is being repealed. In other words, an occupancy permit does not depend on a contractor or an owner meeting the requirements of the act.

So, you can have the grand opening of a brand new mall, and everybody is invited to come to the grand opening, but you have no accessibility because there is no ramp there, because you do not have to have your accessibility obligations dealt with before you get your building inspection and your final permit to occupy.

If that is an improvement, Mr. Speaker, it is an improvement that assists the owners of buildings, it is an improvement that assists the contractors, perhaps, but it is not an improvement that assists the people who need accessibility to a public building in order to get in. That is not an improvement; I will say that.

The second part of the act that is being changed is section 14. First of all, section 10.(4) is repealed. We should look at that, because I had to do a little bit of research in order to find out what was actually going on here. Section 10.(4) removes the power of the director. The director has one less power. He is not allowed to determine - for the purpose of occupancy of a building - that the submission is made and the inspection requirements have been complied with. In other words, he does not have that power because, of course, you do not have to have your building complying with the act to get an occupancy permit any more so we take away that power from the director.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, section 30 is also amended, paragraph 30.(j) of the act. It is very interesting. What other power is being taken away? Because section 30.(j) of the act is repealed. Section 30, in fact, is a section which says that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council - that is the minister and her colleagues in Cabinet - may make regulations. There is a whole series of things that the Cabinet, the minister and her colleagues, are allowed to make regulations about. They can set standards; they can exempt certain buildings, either generally or in particular; they can prescribe sorts of classifications; they can make regulations prescribing the agencies who will be considered acceptable to conduct inspections, et cetera, et cetera.

There is one that they have, a power that they have now, they can make regulations prescribing the manner in which inspections are to be carried out on buildings prior to occupancy. Repealed, Mr. Speaker. The minister and her colleagues in Cabinet are no longer allowed to make regulations prescribing the manner in which inspections are to be carried out on buildings prior to occupancy.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, we have a free-for-all until the building is built. The building is built, occupied, everybody can go in, and at some point down the road the minister can send in an inspector and say: Well, are you meeting the obligations of the Buildings Accessibility Act or are you no? Or, maybe you should do it - I will give you six months, I will give you three months. Maybe we will come back again in another year and see if you have complied.

Is that helping the people who are disabled, who need to get access to buildings? No, Mr. Speaker. In fact, it is taking away the strength of the existing act and I think it is taking it away for a reason.

I heard a story just today, Mr. Speaker, of an individual who built a store in Labrador City, and he could not open the store. Do you know why? He was three months waiting for an inspector to come and do an inspection on the store. One inspector in Labrador - one. One inspector in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. How come he did not come? No travel budget. They took away their travel budgets. They are not allowed to travel. So you have a store owner in Labrador City who wants to open his store, with his store finished, all ready to go. All he needs is an inspector to say: Yes, you can get an occupancy permit - cannot do it. He has to keep the store closed for three months waiting for an inspector to come to Labrador West from Central Labrador and Happy Valley-Goose Bay because the travel budget has been taken away.

Mr. Speaker if the minister has a problem with the inadequacy of inspections, you do not take away the right to inspect. You do not take away the requirement to inspect. You go to the Cabinet and say: Cabinet colleagues, I have a problem here. We have an accessibility requirement in our act but we cannot meet it because we do not have enough inspectors. We have a backlog of inspections. We do not say: Okay, well, let's just loosen the regulations. Let's just loosen the act. Let's loosen the requirements. You do not do that. You go the other way and say: Mr. Premier, my Cabinet colleagues, I have a real difficulty here. We have a very important piece of social legislation. In fact, it is related to the Human Rights legislation, because discrimination against someone on the basis of physical disability is contrary to the Human Rights Code. So we have an act here that is trying to resolve that problem, but we cannot enforce it because we do not have enough inspectors. Not only can we not enforce it, buildings that are finished cannot be occupied because we cannot send someone in to make sure they have the requirements. Now, that is the problem. The problem is not the act. The problem is that the minister is not able to comply with the act. The minister does not have the inspectors that she needs to go in and ensure the act is enforced.

There is an accessibility act here. In fact, there was an in-depth review of the Buildings Accessibility Act and regulations undertaken by a Buildings Accessibility Advisory Board. There is a twenty-page appendix listing the recommendations in terms of changes of the act. Not one of the amendments that are being proposed here are suggested. This Buildings Accessibility Advisory Board did not say to the minister, lessen the regulations; did not say, get rid of the power to inspect prior to occupancy; did not say, let them go it and we will deal with it later after the building is built. They may never go in again. If the minister does not have enough inspectors to go and inspect, they may never see the building again. The person who could not show up for their grand opening cannot go there a year later either.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am not supporting this legislation. This is backward legislation. It is not progressive legislation. It is legislation that takes away the rights of people who are disabled. It takes away the abilities of people who are disabled to know that their government is acting in their best interests and is going to make sure that new buildings which are built in this Province are accessible under the act.

The disability community, Mr. Speaker, does not want this. What they want to see is an act that is strengthened, that ensures that buildings, even buildings that were built before the date set forward in the act are being brought up to date. They want to see schools, for example, being made accessible. We have a situation, Mr. Speaker, where a young child can go to Kindergarten, one, two, three in a school that might be accessible and everybody else in that class goes on to another particular school because of the streaming system that we have, except the disabled child. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? Because the school that all those students are streamed into does not happen to be accessible. So, instead of going on to the next grade with her friends, the disabled child has to go somewhere else to a different school with a whole bunch of brand new people just because the school that she is supposed to be going to does not have the same kind of accessibility that they should have in order for that child to go there. This minister should be coming to this House and saying: We have a real problem here. We are trying to find the money to fix it. Instead of that, Mr. Speaker, what she is doing is lessening the strength of the act, lessening the strength of the power to even make regulations to inspect the building prior to occupancy.

Now, Mr. Speaker, after this act is passed, if they do pass it - I hope they will not. I hope they will change their minds. If they pass this act, Mr. Speaker, guess what? The government will no longer be able to ensure that buildings are required to be inspected for compliance with the accessibility act prior to occupancy. They cannot make any regulations to do that. I want to know why this minister is bringing this legislation here? I really do not. Who is asking her to do it? The inspectors are saying we cannot inspect these buildings fast enough because our travel budget will not let us get around. Are they saying that we have laid off too many people, so therefore we must change the act? Are the contractors saying: boy, look, you know we need a break here? We will get around to accessibility after the fact but do not stop us from opening the building. That is wrong, Mr. Speaker. That is wrong.

I do not hear the Minister responsible for Labour Standards come in and say we are going to drop th electrical code prior to occupancy. I do not hear someone coming in and saying we have a problem with electrical inspectors. We cannot inspect all the buildings, so the best thing for us to do is to drop the electrical code and let people - we will do that after occupancy. I do not see us changing the rules about making sure buildings are safe for electrical reasons or for plumbing reasons or for other reasons, but the minister is coming in here and saying, for the sake of accessibility: Oh, no, you can go ahead, occupy the building. The only problem is the people who are disabled will not be able to come in because we have not met the requirements, but that is all right. We are going to make an exception for them. They do not have to be able to go into a building when it is opened. We will let the inspectors go in afterwards and let them say: Okay, we will give you sixty days, we will give you six months, and if we have the ability to come back and inspect again, we may come back and see whether you have done it or not.

Well, I do not think that is acceptable, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that is acceptable. I think that is a backward step. I think it is a backward step in terms of accessibility. We see some public buildings, even older ones that do not have to comply with the act, being worked on. The Court House down here on Duckworth Street, a lot of money was spent over the last number of years to make that building accessible. Now maybe there is a reason why, Mr. Speaker. Maybe somebody who is disabled, who is charged with an offence, will not even go into the building, and say: I don't have to go because the building is not accessible. I am going to go to the Human Rights Code. Maybe that is why the Court House is fixed. I do not know, but there are an awful lot of public buildings in this Province, hospitals in this Province, personal care homes in this Province, schools in this Province that do no meet the accessibility regulations and act. What this minister should be doing and this government should be doing is saying that we are aware of that. We are very concerned about that and we have a program which says that we are going to ensure that all public buildings meet the accessibility code within a specified period of time and commit the resources to make that happen.

Now, I know we have other problems with schools. We have schools with leaks in the roofs that are not being fixed. We have schools with mould. We have schools with windows that need to be repaired. We have a lot of problems, Mr. Speaker, but the people who have disabilities and who need accessible buildings should not be put on the backburner, and that is what this minister is doing. He is saying that people who need access to buildings in this Province are going to take second place to somebody's desire to open this building sooner rather than later because we do not want to have to comply with the accessibility requirements prior to occupancy because this minister apparently does not have enough inspectors to get out there and do it. If she does not have enough, there are a lot of unemployed people in this Province. We have the highest unemployment rate in the country.

So, if she does not have enough people to do it, hire some more, I say, Mr. Speaker. If they cannot inspect the building because they do not have a travel budget, give them a travel budget. Hopefully, by the end of the day, we will have it one step closer to getting another $2 billion in the coffers that will help us deal with some of the problems that we have, but if we are sitting here in the Legislature today saying we are going to lessen the requirements for public access to buildings for people who are disabled in this Province, if we are going to do that, then what will we do with the money, Mr. Speaker? Are we going to pay down our debts and ignore the disabled? Is that the plan? I do not think so. I hope it is not, but we are here for some reason or other.

There is some pressure being put on the minister to deal with these amendment to the act rather than the dozens and dozens of recommendations that the committee, the Building Accessibility Advisory Board, came forward with a year ago, March of 2004. This is May of 2005. So, fourteen months ago we had a series of recommendations, none of which had to do with making it easier for buildings to be occupied without meeting the requirements - none of which had anything to do with that. They had lots of provisions for improving the accessibility regulations and act, for making it more restrictive, for making it more sensitive to the needs of people who are disabled, but they are not being acted upon. Somewhere between the report of March, 2004 somebody has gotten to the minister. They have come to the minister and said: Well, never mind this for now. We will deal with that later, but I want you to do something. I want you to bring this to the House right now. We need that right now. We need that in May of 2005 before the House closes. We need that legislation in place to ensure that we can open buildings that are not accessible. We want to make sure we can open buildings that are not accessible. That is going to be our priority and we will deal with the other recommendations later.

Well, I do not think that is good enough, Mr. Speaker. I know that the Cabinet has many things on their plate but this minister, obviously, went to the Cabinet and asked for approval of this legislation. Why didn't she go there and say I have a problem? Why didn't she go and say I have a problem? I do not have enough inspectors. I cannot get them out in a timely fashion, buildings are being held up, and I need some more money for inspectors. That would be the proper thing to do, not come in here and ask the House to approve a lesser standard in buildings for people who are disabled to have the right to even get into a building. We are talking about accessibility here. We are talking about people being denied the ability, because of a physical disability in most cases, to actually get into a building. Now, I do not think that is good enough, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that is good enough. I do not see how this government can come in here today with a straight face and say this is an improvement to the legislation, because what they are doing is removing their power to have control over this and they are actually making a lesser standard for buildings that are being built now than existed before this legislation was brought forward.

So, I am asking this minister, reconsider this bill. Reconsider this bill. Take it off the table. Go back to the Buildings Accessibility Advisory Board. Come back in the fall with a comprehensive change to the regulations. Go back to the Buildings Accessibility Advisory Board, conduct whatever consultations you are going to conduct. I do not have a problem with that. I would rather have seen you come forward this session with some comprehensive recommendations. If they are not ready yet, well so be it, they are not ready yet. Maybe they will be ready in the fall. Mr. Speaker, why do we have to make this change now? Why doesn't the minister ensure that we have more inspectors or have more money to be able to ensure that these inspectors can do their job? That is what I think should be happening, Mr. Speaker, not passing this legislation here today.

I ask the minister and the government to leave this legislation at second reading, if you want to, or not bother to finish it. We don't need to have this kind of legislation. What we need is something that is actually going to help the people who are disabled and who need accessibility to buildings in order to be able to get in there. Everybody else can get in there, Mr. Speaker. Anybody else who wants to go to the grand opening of a brand new supermarket or a brand new mall or whatever can go there, but not someone who is disabled, because this minister is saying: No, no, you can have an occupancy permit without meeting the requirements. We are prepared to put these regulations on the back burner. You still have to have your electrical permit, you still have to have your plumbing permit, you still have to have every other permit in place, safety codes, but not building accessibility. We are going to make an exception because we have decided that we, apparently, think less of these requirements than we do of the others.

I don't think that is right, Mr. Speaker, and I don't think this government should be on record as supporting that kind of change.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Government Services speaks now, she will close debate at second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, we have the strongest legislation for the Accessibility Act here in this Province. We are not taking anything away from that Act. All we are asking here is to have a timing of inspections change in peak periods, so that people can occupy the building. We will definitely go in and do an inspection on that building, but we are asking for some flexibility here.

I have met with the handicapped community and explained what we are doing here. Everything has to be in compliance. There is absolutely nothing taken away from that, not one thing. We are saying right now that we need our inspectors to have flexibility so that we can spread out our inspections, because in peak times of construction buildings have had to be held up until we have gotten a final inspection prior to occupancy. All we are asking in this bill is to give us the flexibility to do our inspections over a period of time.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 35 by now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act, Bill 35.

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, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Later in the day.

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

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

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

Order 9, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, Bill 39.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act." (Bill 39)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This bill here is intended to do, I guess, one specific thing. There are a significant number of people who are working now in a bargaining unit who are coming under the Office of the Chief Information Officer, which was under Executive Council. These people now are moving from what would be bargaining positions into non-bargaining positions within Executive Council.

I will preface it by saying there are other workers, too, who have left Treasury Board and gone to Finance, who are gone from non-bargaining positions into bargaining. I sat down with the president of union and looked at it, and we have reached an agreement on a method to deal with these, and the changes are reflected in this legislation here, that I have reached with the president of the union, Mr. Speaker, I guess within the last forty-eight hours on this issue. Because, with the change, I guess, as most people mentioned, there are changes going both ways, of course, but this one, going from a non-bargaining into a bargaining area, obviously there is legislation in place to cover those particular areas. What will happen here, I will just explain it so people will have an understanding of what we are doing, we are taking some 100 to120 people who are going into Executive Council now, which technically they are going to non-bargaining positions, effectively, under the current legislation today, as soon as they go in there, which is now, they will become non-union members and they will be non-bargaining.

What we have done, and reached an agreement, these 120 people - I think that is the number, or very close to that - will maintain their status in the union and technically we will grandfather these while they are here. Some are going to be here for the next twenty or twenty-five years. They will have union status and be members of the union all during this process. Some of them are only here a few years, and some a bit more. I think the average age of the people going in are younger than the public service generally, because in the IT field there is more of a growing area of government.

Not only that, what we have also done in addition to that, Mr. Speaker, this was raised by the union and we agreed with that, not only will we grandfather these in - normally what would happen if someone left, that would get filled by a non-bargaining position - we have indicated also that even if a position becomes vacant, let's say at a higher up level, somebody who is at another level below will have an opportunity to move up to that position rather than have someone non-union go into that position.

That will allow two things: protection for them - even though they are technically in Executive Council, where there is no bargaining - to allow them to maintain that status, and will also allow a process so they can advance and get promoted within that group, because otherwise they would not have it if we followed the current legislation. They would not be in it, number one, and now that we are going to allow them to go in it, we want to allow someone who might be a GS 38 and a GS 44, if they leave or retire, allow them to compete. Normally, it would be filled by non-bargaining. Now, if they are qualified to go in there, they will get that advantage to be able to move along. So, that gives protection not only for their status now but also an opportunity to advance and does not hinder them in getting promoted and moving there.

This has been agreed with union members. I sat down with the president and a member representing these people in IT, and we did reach an agreement that we have established with the transfers of personnel here, and I must say that we did get to a very successful resolution to that. This is what this reflects here in this particular bill.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have had an opportunity to read Bill 39 and we have been kept informed by the Government House Leader and the Minister of Finance as to the progress between his department and the union. Of course, as circumstances change from time to time you need to amend legislation to reflect those changing circumstances.

We are pleased to see that an agreement has been worked out with the unions involved, and we will be supportive of this piece of legislation.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand this legislation being brought forward was based on a Memorandum of Understanding between the Newfoundland Association of Public and Private Employees and the government, and it is on that basis that I support the legislation.

Can the minister, when he closes debate, indicate whether or not, although these positions appear to be red circled in terms of unionization and conformity with obligations to the union, and some special rights associated with them, are they then subject to collective bargaining as well or are they outside the collective bargaining regime but there is a separate regime based on the Memorandum of Understanding for those people for their careers? I guess that is the question here.

I do note that exempted from this provision in the Executive Council is the Lieutenant-Governor's establishment, and these are the people, the staff, who work at Government House, who I understand have been unionized for many years and will continue to be unionized. They are not affected by this. When I saw it first, I said: Oh, no, you are not going to take them out. I don't see any reason to take them out of any unionized situation, but I understand they are not included in that, so that seems to be perfectly appropriate.

I guess the only thing that I would ask is: Is it intended that these people would then be subject to the general collective bargaining regime, whether there are raises that are of general application, or will they be dealt with under the non-bargaining unit regime of Treasury Board with respect to other wages and benefits?

The minister has mentioned that they would continue to be members of NAPE for the purposes of collection of union dues, et cetera, and also have certain rights of advancement related to their status as bargaining unit members. Would they also be subject to the other aspects of collective bargaining as it goes on over the years, or will they be part of the government pay plan separate from the bargaining unit status?

I do not have any objection to the legislation if it is something that has been worked out between the union and the government. If this is designed to facilitate that, I certainly do not have any objection to it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now he will close debate at second reading.

The hon. the minister.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These individuals, I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, of course, as he indicated accurately, as members of the union who pay union dues, will have all the rights and privileges of members of a union, and any actions and so on that they may want - if there is labour unrest and they want to take action - they will have the same rights and privileges. We hope that will not happen, but they will have all the same rights and privileges to be considered a part of that specific bargaining unit.

As we know, with time, that number will decrease until some time, probably thirty years time or more, there will be none left, basically, of a bargaining unit there. Who knows what happens in the next five, ten, fifteen years, what structure government could take on, but we have agreed to protect that status and to allow them the opportunity to advance along with the process, along with having the rights and privileges of people who are in the bargaining unit, not just dues-paying members of that union.

With that I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, 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 Collective Bargaining Act. (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: Later today, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Later in today's session.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 39)

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 Amend The Automobile Insurance Act. (Bill 26)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act." (Bill 26)

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

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act.

I am pleased to speak today on the additional reforms we are introducing today as a result of the public review process and the department's own review of several related issues.

It was fourteen months ago that the Premier and I announced this government's first series of auto insurance reforms and laid out our plan for addressing insurance issues in this Province, and I am pleased to be able to say today that we have delivered on that plan. Our first step on March 17, 2004, was to freeze auto insurance rates for one year and to direct the Public Utilities Board to undertake several studies and a public review process into other possible reform options. At that time we brought forward a series of initial auto insurance reforms that have provided consumers with an average overall saving of 15 per cent, depending on their coverage and where in the Province they live. We believe consumers are treated more fairly as a result of Bill 30 and the new rules on how insurance companies can set rates and refuse coverage.

I want to outline today the additional reforms we are implementing as part of this government's auto insurance reform plan. We are providing for a further overall 5 per cent reduction in premiums for many drivers, as well as significant reductions in rates for young drivers. This means many consumers will realize a total average overall saving of 20 per cent on their auto insurance premiums as a result of the measures taken by this government since August of last year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: We are mandating that companies reduce premiums by a further 5 per cent as of August 1, 2005, unless a company can actuarially justify that they cannot afford any further reductions. This additional saving will be credited on the consumer's next policy or refunded upon cancellation of the policy.

We are eliminating rating based on age, gender and marital status. This will be done by regulation. When we brought in new guidelines on how insurance companies could set rates and refuse coverage last year, we put them into regulation to give us the flexibility to add others. We will now be adding ratings based on age, gender and marital status to that list. As a result, drivers under twenty-five will achieve significantly more savings - in some cases as much as 46 per cent. This is a major issue for young drivers and their parents. Under existing rates, some young drivers literally cannot afford to drive because of the cost of insurance. A third of all consumer comments during the review process pertained to this issue. We agree that it is not fair to the 85 per cent of young drivers who do not have accidents to have to pay huge premiums for the 15 per cent who do.

We are also ensuring that insurance companies do not raise rates for drivers over the age of twenty-five as a result of this measure. Any rate increases will have to be actuarially justified. At the same time, we are permitting companies to continue to offer seniors' discounts.

From a consumer protection perspective, we are putting in place requirements for insurance companies to follow to ensure consumers are informed of their rights and responsibilities when they are making a claim. To this end, insurance companies will now have to complete a point of claims disclosure form to be signed by the claimant when making a claim. This form will ensure that claimants know that, under federal law, insurance companies can place them under surveillance without their knowledge or consent. We consulted on this issue, and we feel this balances privacy concerns without defeating the purpose of surveillance. Federal law permits insurance companies to put claimants under surveillance. What we are doing is informing claimants of this possibility while ensuring the purpose of this activity is upheld.

This form will ensure that anyone making a claim is fully aware that it is a criminal offence to make a false claim or to inflate a claim, and that they can be prosecuted. It also ensures that insurance companies advise policyholders of third-party claims made against their policy and the final amount paid out. It will ensure that injured parties are told they can apply to court to receive their claim in periodic payments instead of a lump sum. It will ensure that claimants are told that the insurance company must settle the claim as quickly as possible and, where fault has been determined, to make interim payments until the final amount of the claim has been settled.

We are also now moving to permit group rating, which will provide lower rates of between 5 per cent and 15 per cent to members of identified groups, such as unions and alumni associations. The Public Utilities Board review indicates that there is a general support for this type of rating. This bill also gives effect to the new rate setting process this government announced in March. Based on a review and consultation by officials in my department, this process is based on individual company filings, where each company must justify any rate increase to the Public Utilities Board.

To conclude, I just want to say that as a government we mandate people to carry auto insurance, and therefore it is incumbent upon us to ensure that consumers are treated fairly and that they have access to coverage at reasonable rates. This is what we set out to achieve, and this is exactly what we have achieved.

We implemented a $2,500 deductible last August and ensured that the Terms of Reference for the Public Utilities Board review included a cap versus a deductible. The evidence out of that review indicates that a cap does not achieve the savings claimed by the industry, and that the annual savings are not sufficient enough to justify the compensation restriction on injured parties.

We have achieved an average overall savings of 20 per cent while still retaining that access to compensation. We believe this is in the best interest of consumers and that it is what consumers want.

We are being reasonable with these reforms given the significant profits being reported in the insurance industry, and the room the Public Utilities Board says exists for rates to come down. We are taking a pro-active approach to ensure rates do, indeed, come down.

We understand that not all companies have the same profit margins, which is why we are legislating reductions of 5 per cent unless a company can go to the Public Utilities Board and actuarially justify otherwise.

We are legislating these reforms in the best interest of consumers in this Province and I look forward to the support of the members for this bill.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to speak to this bill today. It is another step, I guess, in the government's attempt to find savings for consumers on their automobile insurance. To me, it is more like - one of my colleagues mentioned earlier today about Shakespeare. Well, to me, it is almost like act three of a tragedy.

In August, 2003, this party opposite, on their quest to forming the government, before they were government, promised a $2,500 cap and all the bells and whistles that went with it. The Premier and the critic at the time, the Member for CBS, held a hastily put together press conference and promised the world everything with regard to insurance. So far that was pushed into the Blue Book and we have not seen any of that, only little bits and pieces of it coming out one step at a time, Mr. Speaker.

In August, 2004, government had another great idea with a $2,500 deductible and precious little else. At the end of the day here, this being May, two years later, we get another little piece.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you where the real savings are coming from to the consumer in the insurance business. The industry itself is enjoying profits. In every report that has been published their profits are up, and the consumer, of course, is enjoying some benefit from it. Unfortunately, there are those out there who are still receiving rate increases. I have had people come to me as late as Friday past, in my district, and showed me a 31 per cent increase in their rates. While there are other people who will say, yes, the minister promised me 20 per cent, other people have shown me that they have only received 12 per cent saving. It is a real hodgepodge, what is happening in the industry out there.

Mr. Speaker, there are a few thing in there that really torment me. The Act provides for insurance companies to permit senior discounts - permits them to do it! - but it doesn't say there that it requires them to do it. If those senior discounts are going to be treated anything like the discount that was just legislated by the Petroleum Products Pricing Commissioner earlier this week where gasoline was reduced by 1.1 cents a liter - there wasn't a pump in the city here changed that I saw. I purchased gasoline a couple of nights ago and gasoline was still at 99.9 cents a litre. If it is going to permit and it is going to be as slap-happy as that, well I would tell you that the consumers will not receive any finite reductions in cost.

Everyone in the industry, Mr. Speaker, will tell you that the $2,500 deductible won't sustain those discounts, those reductions in cost of insurance to the public. While right now the industry is enjoying the great economic situation that they are in, yes, you will see it, but I will tell you, that reduction of 15 per cent or 5 per cent or 20 per cent, however this gets out - because most of the people out there don't really know anymore and I think they are throwing up their arms in despair, and saying: Hopefully, we will save a dollar here somewhere. Most people will tell you that, that $2,500 will not make this Act work. You will find that the discounts and the savings to consumers will erode. I can guarantee you we will be back here in a year or two, or less, going through this whole process again, of looking at insurance. It is a continuing saga.

Everyone will tell you, the only thing that will bring down insurance rates is the reduction in the payout for pain and suffering. Everyone will tell you. Either that or the government would have to take a giant leap and go the other way and look at public insurance. This piecemeal approach that this government is taking with regard to insurance and insurance rates certainly will not do the job that is being promised here.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to belabour this, this afternoon, because the minister and her government has already got their mind set on what their approach is to this. It is piecemeal. We will get one little piece at a time, whenever it comes up, whenever the issue raises itself. We are not hearing any outcry right now from the public because the public is not really feeling threatened, not like it was a few years ago when rates went up drastically, and, as I said, because of where we are right now in the economic climate with the insurance companies.

Mr. Speaker, all I will say at this point in time is that we will see you back here again next year with a similar piece of insulation -

AN HON. MEMBER: Legislation.

MR. SWEENEY: Legislation. Thank you very much. I was thinking about something else there then. And repeating this whole process again, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak at second reading on Bill 26, An Act to Amend The Automobile Insurance Act.

What we see here, Mr. Speaker, are some changes being made, coming out of the report of the Public Utilities Commission on the automobile insurance review. This is a review, you will remember, Mr. Speaker, that was promised this time last year by the minister and by this government. One of the significant debates going on in the House at the time, raised by me, based on a private member's motion plus on a general debate in the House, was that we should establish a committee of this House to examine the public automobile insurance system as an alternative for Newfoundland and Labrador, and set up the kind of committee that they had in New Brunswick in order to do that.

Mr. Speaker, we had speech after speech from the government saying that this was not necessary because the Public Utilities Board was going to look at that, the Public Utilities Board was going to study that, the Public Utilities Board was going to have an opportunity to look into this, amongst other things, because that was what the Public Utilities Board was there for. Well, guess what, Mr. Speaker? The Public Utilities Board undertook an automobile insurance review and when the Terms of Reference came out there was no mention of public insurance at all in the first draft, and when the issue was raised with the minister through her officials, they added one clause which said that the commission should also report on any representations made to them about public automobile insurance.

Now, I do not consider that a review of public automobile insurance. In fact, if one looks at the report of the Public Utilities Commission, the issue is mentioned here in the section, and I will just read the executive summary because that simplifies what the board says, "The Board was also requested to detail any issues of concern raised by stakeholders at the review, including public insurance." Now, that was the review of public automobile insurance that the board conducted. "The board heard a great deal from participants regarding public insurance and the experience elsewhere in Canada. A number of participants supported the concept of public insurance as a cheaper and more affordable means of delivering the insurance product." That was true. I was one of them.

The next sentence is very interesting, "It was well understood by all participants that the Board was not in the position to address the feasibility of public insurance during this review but many supported a detailed study to examine fully its potential in serving future automobile insurance needs in this Province." Period, full stop. That is what the board had to say about public automobile insurance as a result of the review which it did not conduct on public auto insurance but only reviewed the comments made to it by people around the Province. An absolute failure by this government to consider the public insurance option in any realistic and real way.

The biggest failure of this government, Mr. Speaker, is to withhold that option from the public by not offering an opportunity for it to be fully studied by a select committee of this House, to be able to determine what advantages it could have in terms of lowering rates in this Province the same as they have been lowered in the Provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan as a result of public auto.

The government, in this legislation, has chosen at least one of the features of public auto that is an important feature, and that is the non-discrimination against drivers on the basis of age, gender and marital status, and that is good. Although I do not actually see in the act - there is a provision there that ensures that if they do charge it they have to give it back - but I do not actually see the part which says they are not allowed to set that claim. Maybe the minister can enlighten me on that - this legislation was only tabled a day or so ago - where exactly it is prohibited from charging rates based on that. There is provision there that says you have to give them back if you charge those rates after August 1, and I can see that deals with somebody whose rates continue. You sign a policy now, that continues for a year, but you have to give them back after September 1. I do not actually see that particular part which restricts the premiums being set on that basis.

According to the Explanatory Notes, clause 6 amends the act to provide for a refund of premium where a person had been charged an amount based on his age, sex, or marital status, but I do not see the actual prohibition either in the Explanatory Notes or in the bill itself. Maybe the minister can point out, when she closes debate, the prohibition on not having those types of rates being charged in the future. I know it is the intention of the minister and I have heard her say it and I have seen her reports, but I do not see in the act where that prohibition is contained. Perhaps she can enlighten me on that when she closes the debate, or we can deal with it in committee.

Mr. Speaker, my biggest disappointment is that we have not seen a full study of public auto. I do have concerns that this issue of no longer having discrimination on the basis of age, gender and marital status - one of the observations that the Public Utilities Board did make is that if you do that, you are going to raise rates for everybody else, that the inevitable consequences of doing that, by eliminating these rates for young people, is that you are going to pass them on to more mature people like ourselves, I suppose, here in this House, that we are going to have to pay higher premiums to cover that, although the minister seems to insist that they not do that. The question then becomes, where is the money going to come from.

The Public Utilities Board says that you are shifting the risk - they call it premium dislocation. Premium dislocation is a fancy word, Mr. Speaker. I think it must come from these regulatory types. Premium dislocation means that you are taking the premium away from the risk and passing it on to everybody else, and the everybody else in this case are people who are not young males under twenty-five, I guess, and passing it on to everybody else. The Minister says in her notes: No, no, there is not going to be any increase to anybody else. I would like to ask to her how she solves that logical problem, because it is a logical problem. She is also insisting that they decrease rates by a further 5 per cent, unless they can prove - and maybe this is the out for the minister - unless they can prove actuarially that they need to raise the rates. Maybe we have a shell game going on here, Mr. Speaker. We want you to reduce it by 5 per cent, we want you not to discriminate and you are not allowed to raise your rates unless you come and tell us that you need to raise your rates. That seems to be the parcelling of the bill before the House. I am not convinced, Mr. Speaker, that all these things can be accomplished.

I will say, though, Mr. Speaker, we had one extremely positive result from the considerations of the Public Utilities Commission. It turns out that the big thrust by the insurance companies for the last five or six or eight years or ten years, to reduce the amount of benefits to consumers by placing caps on the tort benefits, on pain and suffering, has been shown to be a sham. That, in fact, the kind of benefits that would result to ratepayers would be in the order, I believe, of $67 per year. Some $6 or $7 a month for premium payers would save in insurance rates but people who had significant injuries, who the insurance companies wanted capped, would actually lose the entire benefit of anything beyond $2,500 if the insurance companies had their way.

So, when the chips were down, Mr. Speaker, when all the actuaries had the figures on the table, the end result was, as the Consumer Advocate said and is quoted in the report as saying, that a small number of people would lose a lot in order to benefit the whole mass of other people a very little, and that was unacceptable from a social point of view. I am glad, Mr. Speaker, the Public Utilities Board got that right and I am glad the government is not going along with the proposal, nor is it going along with its pre-election promise in August of 2003, to institute a cap. That promise was a mistake, Mr. Speaker. It was a mistake. It may have been put together hastily by the Premier and the Member for Conception Bay South, the Government Whip over there. It may have been put together in haste, in a pre-election period, but it was the wrong thing to do, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad they are not doing it. I am glad they are not keeping that promise because it was a promise that would hurt a lot of people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

There may be one thing, Mr. Speaker, that is going to save this government on this issue for a little while - for a little while only - and that is that the Public Utilities Board has come to a conclusion about the future that we are heading into a period of rate stability. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is that the insurance companies are going to do very, very well for the next while. What that means, Mr. Speaker, we are heading into a period of rate stability, and that is defined as the premiums being higher than the payouts. That translates into profit for insurance companies. Last year they got $4.2 billion in property and casualty business across the country. Because we are heading into what they call a period of rate stability, here is what we say: As can be seen from the performance of the industry, the industry has rebounded remarkably in recent times with average premiums for third party liability exceeding claim costs by a significant margin.

What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? They have a nice chart here, too, on page 117 of the report. What that means is they are making lots of money. They are taking in more than they pay out. So, they are a little happier than they were four or five years ago, Mr. Speaker, when they were jacking the rates up by 50, 60, 70 and 100 per cent in some places, in some years, because we do have a cyclical industry. They were coming to consumers to get money that they were losing in the stock markets and the rates went through the roof.

Maybe, Mr. Speaker, we will have a period of rate stability because the insurance companies will be back to making the billions of dollars a year that they like to make.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The member agrees, and well he might, because one of the other things that this government said they were going to do: We are going to make those insurance companies open the books. We are going to force them to open the books, Mr. Speaker. We are going to look at their books.

The member laughs. Rightly so, Mr. Speaker. Of course you laugh. Did you see any of their books? Did the Member for Conception Bay South see any of their books? Did you see how much money they were making? The only reason we know what they are making is because they make reports in Ottawa and they brag to the stock market about how much money they are making; $4.2 billion. That's the only books that we see, Mr. Speaker, is the profits up along. We do not see their cost in this Province.

When I bring forth statistics saying that their overhead costs are twice as much as public auto, all they can do is deny that. They are not going to show you their books and say: no, no, no, no. They will not show you the books. They will not show you how much they are making in Newfoundland and Labrador. They do not want anyone to know. They will probably tell you: We don't actually calculate our profits by province. No, not much they do not, Mr. Speaker. Not much they do not! They do not decide whether they are profitable to operate in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think they do, Mr. Speaker. I think they decide where they are going to be, based on how much money they are making in a particular area.

No, Mr. Speaker, we did not see those books. Nothing was brought into this Legislature by way of legislation to ensure that those books were open, and attempts that were made to ask the Public Utilities Board to order them failed. The Public Utilities Board would not order that. So we have a bit of a disappointment, frankly.

The government is riding out the cycle. We are now back into a very profitable cycle for the insurance companies, the big increases have been absorbed. They have beaten them back a little bit. The insurance companies feel a bit safer now because they reduced rates in New Brunswick a little bit to stave off the demand for public auto there. This government has not had the political will to even study public automobile in this Province and only threatened it last summer as some sort of public relations gesture to try and frighten the insurance industry.

We have a situation where there is some progress being made, I do not deny that. If we are taking the age and gender discrimination out of the mix, that is a good thing. If the rest of us do not have to pay for that because the profits are so great, that it is not going to affect older people, like the minister and myself who would otherwise be affected by these rates, according to the Public Utilities Board, then there must be a really big cushion of profit, I say to hon. members, for the insurance companies to be able to do that. What that means probably, to me, is that there is too much profit and that some of that profit should be returned to consumers in the form of even lower rates.

As we have seen historically, statistically, objectively over the last twenty-five years, public automobile insurance has consistently delivered the lowest cost insurance across the country, the fairest insurance across the country in terms of nondiscrimination, and a system of claims that is equal to none. In fact, produces income and revenue and investment that can be reinvested in the province in which the companies operate, like they do in Manitoba, like they do in Saskatchewan, like they do in British Columbia.

So, I am disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that the minister and this government have not gone further than they have, but certainly, I do not object to the changes that are being made here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER (S. Osborne): The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

If the minister speaks now she will close the debate.

MS WHALEN: Madam Speaker, I just want to address a couple of points here - one about the deductible. The Public Utilities Board review told us that the savings with a cap versus a deductible would be about $67 a year. It was felt there was not significant savings there for the consumers to give up their compensation for pain and suffering. So this government did not want to take away the rights and neither did the consumers want that right taken away.

The other issue that I want to address, as well, is the issue about public insurance. We have not made a decision on public insurance, although I know that the hon. member had an opportunity to present at the Public Utilities Board review. To do a study on that is very costly and we would need expertise and actuarial to do some of this in-depth study. What we have done, as a government, is said that we would wait until we have the commercial, the residential and the marine insurance report back, and we would make a decision, if, indeed, we would go with public insurance.

The other issue that I want to mention here is: Listening to my hon. colleague across the way talking about the reforms, you know, we have only been in government for eighteen months and we have brought in new reforms since 2004. We don't have any problem with coming back to this House to look at any legislation, to look at insurance legislation, when it comes to giving the consumers in this Province a benefit, I would say to the hon. member. The former government was in for ten years and there was no action taken on it. I did find a lot of reports that I dusted off and looked at and we went out, and in eighteen months we have brought in some major reforms with this government.

Young people, under twenty-five years of age can get up to 46 per cent savings. I think that is a major accomplishment when it comes to reform. When you can see a group rating being brought into these new reforms, and the fact that claimants will now be told about their rights and responsibilities with a Point of Claim Disclosure, these are good reforms, Madam Speaker, and we are very pleased, as a government, to be able to bring this legislation into the House.

With those comments, I would like to say thank you, and I hope that all members can support this bill.

Thank you.

MADAM 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.

MADAM SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act, Bill 26.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Later today, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Later today.

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

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Madam Speaker, Order 11, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Lobbyists Registration Act, Bill 38.

MADAM SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 38 entitled An Act To Amend The Lobbyists Registration Act, we now read a second time.

Motion, second reading a bill, "An Act To Amend The Lobbyists Registration Act." (Bill 38)

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

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

I am pleased this afternoon to introduce Bill 38, which is An Act To Amend The Lobbyists Registration Act. This is an amendment of a housekeeping nature. It is an amendment that would normally have been handled in the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act. In view of the fact that we anticipate the proclamation of the original legislation in the fall, we thought it was appropriate to bring this amendment forward which will correct an error which has been identified in section 6 of the act regarding the registration of in-house lobbyists.

Madam Speaker, I am grateful to Mr. Guy Giorno of the law firm of Fasken Martineau who is the author of a law book called Lobbying in Canada which examines lobbyists registration laws across the country. He informs me, in correspondence, that it is the intention to include the Newfoundland and Labrador Statute in the next edition. In the course of reviewing our act, he spotted an error and wanted to bring it to our attention. It looks like there was an error made in the printing of the bill, therefore the purpose of this amendment is to correct that housekeeping area.

The act, of course, referred to two types of lobbyists, in-house lobbyists and consultant lobbyists. In-house lobbyists, you will recall, are described in section 6 as persons employed by organizations whose duties include lobbying, whereas, on the other hand, consultant lobbyists are described in section 5 as persons who, for remuneration, undertake to lobby on behalf of clients. You will recall these are people who are independent consultants who hire themselves out as lobbyists, where in the previous case the in-house lobbyists are people, of course, who may work for an organization and would devote parts of their time to lobbying on behalf of their employer and, of course, for others.

Subsection (6) of section 6 exempts anything an individual does for his or her own employer. Examination of the section indicates that, "This section does not apply to anything that an employee undertakes to do on the sole behalf of the employees' employer or, where the employer is a corporation, with respect to anything that the employee, at the direction of the employer, undertakes to do on behalf of any subsidiary of the employer or any corporation of which the employer is a subsidiary."

The other provisions of section 6, of course, are exclusively concerned with things that people do for their employers. The problem is, of course, if the provision quoted above stays where it is, it effectively invalidates the other provisions relating to in-house lobbyists.

Madam Speaker, the amendment will delete subsection 6.(6) from section 6 but replace it in section 5 of the Act, as is the case with all other jurisdictions that have this subsection. This will provide certainty that the provisions respecting the consultant lobbyists do not apply to a person who is lobbying on behalf of an employer, a subsidiary of an employer, or a corporation of which the employer is a subsidiary.

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all hon. members support the passing of this amendment so that we can correct this error, and I look forward to discussion.

 

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I understand from the minister this is a technical amendment. I was going to ask him how many people were registered under the Act, but I gather there are none since the Act has not been proclaimed. I wonder whether the learned author who wrote the minister, whether he liked our Act or whether it was just a technical problem he had with it.

I do have a question for him and perhaps he can answer this when he closes debate, and that is: Why is it we are exempting employees of corporations from lobbyists registration, because we have a possibility, and a strong possibility, that corporations might actually hire somebody because of their connection to a government, or a ministry, or something of that nature. If I am running a business as a lobbyist, fine, I have to be registered, but if I am just employed by a company, I do not have to be registered.

In the Gomery Commission, for example, we have heard witnesses talk about how David Dingwall, ex Minister of the Crown, did some lobbying for this company. Well, that is fine. That person, no doubt, was registered. What if, instead of being a lobbyist working for a lobby, David Dingwall was actually employed by this company to go and talk to the government as an employee. We have some companies that have full-time government relations officers, and that is their job. Their job is to go and lobby companies or lobby government on behalf of the company that hires them.

Why shouldn't they be registered, Mr. Speaker, because they could be spending all of their time lobbying government? Isn't it important that we know who they are? These companies might, in fact, go out and hire someone specifically because they have connections with a particular government, that they have experience in government, or experience in that government, or they may have been an aide to a minister, they may have been an executive assistant to a minister in the previous government, they might be related to a member of the government. It could be anybody that would be hired by a company specifically to lobby the government and yet, for some reason, they are exempted from the Lobbyist Act.

I want to know, maybe the minister can tell us, the philosophy of excluding employees, because not only are they excluded from their employer but they can lobby on behalf of all their subsidiaries. This corporation - let us say it is some corporation in Ontario somewhere - they have a full-time government relations officer and they come down here lobbying government all the time. They are either lobbying them here, or lobbying them somewhere else, and yet they do not have to register. They can come to town and lobby the government all they like and there may be connections between that individual and the government that we do not know about. The whole purpose of lobbyist registration is transparency, so that we know what is going on.

Maybe the minister can tell us whether or not that academic lawyer friend of his has a book with all the other acts in them. Is this common across the country? Do all the other acts exclude employees of companies or are we unique in that regard? Is that something that we have decided to do because we do not want employees who are maybe even full time lobbyists for their own employer to be disclosed? Is that something that we are doing that is different from somewhere else?

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, obviously it is a technical amendment and I do not have an objection to fix the amendment, but maybe he can tell us why we are excluding employees in the first place.

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

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

I will have to take the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi's question under advisement. I seem to recall that the section excluded employees from registration who spent less than a certain period of time involved in lobbyist activities. I will be happy to check into the matter and get back to the hon. member. I do thank him for his comments.

The author in question was a Mr. Giorno with the Fasken Martineau law firm and he did congratulate us on the introduction and the passage of the legislation, but he did say that our legislation in fact mirrors all other jurisdictions across the country on that particular point.

I am happy to say thank you and to move second reading of the legislation.

MADAM 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.

MADAM SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act to Amend The Lobbyists Registration Act. (Bill 38)

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Later today, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Later today.

On motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The Lobbyists Registration Act, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 38)

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Order 8, second reading of a bill, An Act to Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles and All- Terrain Vehicles Act. ( Bill 36).

MADAM SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 36 be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act." ( Bill 36).

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill 36, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act.

This bill is pertaining to ATVs only. Government committed last June to reviewing the legislation as it pertained to the safe operations of ATVs in the Province. This was in response to a number of ATV-related injuries occurring in the Province, particularly among children. On average, a dozen children under the age of fourteen are hospitalized in this Province each year with ATV-related injuries. Last June we had a case in this Province where an eleven-year-old girl was seriously injured when the full-sized ATV she was operating rolled over. Two women walking along the road in Colinet were hospitalized in November after being struck by an ATV.

This is clearly a serious public policy issue. The public and the health professionals have been calling on government to bring in tougher measures to bring the activity under control. In November, public health associations issued a joint position paper on the safe use of ATVs. The paper recommended increasing the minimum age to operate an ATV to sixteen years.

My department also reviewed the regulations in other provinces and consulted with user groups before moving forward with these amendments.

Canadian medical research indicates that children under sixteen do not have the judgement, the maturity, or the physical strength to operate those powerful machines. This is why we are moving to increase the minimum age to operate an adult-sized ATV in this Province to sixteen years. Some exemptions to the age requirement will continue to apply in Northern Labrador pending further consultations. The communities exempt are those that are not connected by road. We hope to have recommendations that apply to those areas by the fall.

We recognize the benefit of allowing fourteen- and fifteen-year-olds to learn to operate an ATV on smaller machines with an engine size no more than ninety cc's. We are making allowances for that under adult supervision. This will allow them to become familiar with the operations of the machine before graduating to a more powerful engine size; however, a person under fourteen years of age will no longer be permitted to operate any size ATV.

Based on our information, we know the risk of injury to a younger driver under sixteen years of age is four times greater than that of an adult. It is clear to us that the minimum age needs to be increased for full-sized machines. In an attempt to reduce the injuries and deaths associated with this activity, we are also developing a safety awareness campaign to promote the safe use of ATVs in all parts of the Province. We want to ensure that all users, particularly children and their parents, are aware of the rules governing these machines. Awareness and education are important tools in reducing instances of abuse and, as a result, improving safety.

On a go-forward basis, we will also be issuing more easily identifiable licence plates to assist with enforcement, and we are doubling a number of fines and penalties to provide a greater deterrence against illegal use. The maximum fine for careless driving will increase from $500 to $1,000, while the fine while driving under the influence will triple for a first offence to $1,500. It will also include a new provision for vehicle seizure. We are also taking measures to encourage owners of vehicles who have changed hands without the required notification of change in ownership to bring their registration current. This will assist us in ensuring owner and operator responsibility through improved identification of these vehicles.

We are introducing a twelve-month amnesty on the payment of provincial sales taxes for ATVs that have previously changed hands in private sales to encourage the proper re-registration by owners of these vehicles. We want to help police identify the owners of these machines, as well as allow residents to be able to report the presence of nuisance machines in their neighbourhoods. After the twelve-month amnesty period, owners of ATVs that are not properly registered can be fined $400.

We believe we are taking a positive step to get this activity under control for the safety and protection of operators and residents, and to reduce the abusive use of these machines in residential areas and on town streets.

People are being seriously injured and endangering others while operating ATVs illegally. We hope to make people think twice by educating them of the dangers and bringing in stiff penalties for such reckless activity.

My department will conduct further consultations on mandatory insurance and operator training, as well as enhanced safety measures around the use of snowmobiles, before making recommendations to Cabinet on this issue in the fall.

Thank you, and I look for your support on this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to respond to Bill 36 this afternoon, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act.

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to say to the people of the Province that the members of this caucus are in favour of any measures that are taken by government to improve public safety. We have no problem, I guess, in supporting good legislation that has gone through the proper process. The problem I have with this piece of legislation, Madam Speaker, is that government only released this plan in Tuesday of this week in what appeared to be hastily called news conference, and quite coincidentally it was in the middle of the current polling period. It seemed like there were a lot of news conferences called in the past few days to see if they could bolster up the polls after the recent crab dispute.

The content of the legislation, I have to say, is fair, but based on the comments of the minister this week in the media there have been a number of concerns raised publicly. I feel, as well as members of my caucus feel, that more consultation and analysis is needed before we move forward on this. The minister said herself a few moments ago that there is going to be more legislation coming this fall and she is going to consult with the people of Labrador between now and the fall. At 4:19 p.m. on possibly the last day of this session, I would like to ask the minister and the government if she would be kind enough to hold this and consult with all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador until this fall, and give everybody a chance to have some input into what is happening here.

I have some concerns with the resources of government, and if they have the ability to enforce these regulations. I live in a rural community, I live in Carbonear, and I drive through Harbour Grace and Victoria and Salmon Cove on a regular basis when I am out in my constituency. I know, it was only a little while ago I was going up Harvey Street in Harbour Grace - and I might add that probably the only thing fit to use on Harvey Street in Harbour Grace right now is an ATV, because of the ruts and dips and bumps and potholes - and two ATVs pulled out and passed me. I would say they were doing about seventy kilometres an hour on a main thoroughfare. That is not just a rare occasion. On the street I live on in Carbonear, on Valley Road, when I leave to go to work in the mornings or coming home in the evening, zip, these ATVs come along by me. These are not driven by small children, I say, Madam Speaker, these are driven by adults.

If we are not going to enforce the present legislation that we have, like no driving of ATVs on public highways - these are all-terrain vehicles, meaning off the road vehicles for various types of terrain, and not pavement. If we are not going to enforce that, why push this through in a two-day period? Let's stop, listen to what the people have to say, and make sure that we have some legislation in place to do the enforcement. Look at providing for some means of getting our RNC or RCMP Officers, whatever part of the Province you might be living in - in my particular case it is the RCMP. The municipalities cannot take on the extra debt of policing, of adding a police force to do this.

We have a piece of legislation that was passed a couple of years ago requiring the use of cellphones while driving. That is not being enforced. All too often I see people with a cellphone stuck to their ear. It was only a short period ago that the Premier passed me on Portugal Cove Road enjoying the use of his cellphone. I am sure that is how commonplace it is, when the leader of our Province is using a cellphone on the way to work or on the way to wherever he was going, but everywhere you go, at traffic lights, stop signs, everywhere. I think enforcement is probably an area that we should be looking at.

Another thing that we have to consider is the negative impact that this legislation is going to have on the many businesses in this Province. It is something that - there are hard times in rural Newfoundland right now, I say, Madam Speaker, some very difficult times. In some of these communities they have little ATV stores that they are depending on to make these sales. Many companies, I have to say, have made their purchases for this year. They have their stock on hand. Now, we are going to find out that we are going to cause difficulty to these businesses that they are not going to be able to sell these bikes. I tell you, a fourteen-year-old who is six-foot-two, as many of them are in the Province, because I think there is a statistic out there that says over 50 per cent of fourteen, fifteen-year-olds are over five-foot-seven. I do not think, Madam Speaker, that it is wise to do this at this point in time. Give these people a chance to have a chat with the minister.

Minister, I even suggest to you, to go out to some of these businesses and have a look at the vehicles and the sizes that we are talking. I know from experience, when my son was five-years-old he had an ATV. It was one that I had to walk behind with a tether on my hand so that if he got away from me the kill switch would disengage. Him and I and my wife - our family shared the use of those ATVs without any harm coming to any of us.

I had an e-mail just before I came down here today from a family who had a son. The son and the mother and father left here last year and went to Port aux Basques using the rail bed. The son was in between the two bikes on his own bike. The three of them went across the Island, uneventful. I think that we are in a situation here where we are using a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito, I really do. There are ways to protect the safety of our people other than coming down with high fines and legislation that is going to cause undue difficulty for a lot of people.

What I would like to do, Minister, is if you could take a step back - because if this bill passes this afternoon, which I am sure it will, because as I have seen in this session, that you are your government have predetermined the outcome of most of these bills, or all of these bills. I would like to see, if you do it today, step back and do the right thing. Do what you are promising to do up in Labrador, consult with the stakeholders, but do it for the whole Province. Do it for everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador. Talk to the people who continue to raise concerns about this. This is, as inconsequential as some people might think who may live here in the city - there are many communities in the Province where people use these ATVs as a means of existence.

The right thing to do, in my opinion, would be to put this legislation off, put it on hold until this fall, Minister. Rather than come back with another piece to this, come back with a comprehensive piece. Again, I think there are too many unanswered questions. Unfortunately, like a lot of bills and legislation that comes into effect in government, the devil is in the detail here. Many, many people have not had a chance to view this because there is another part of this which the House of Assembly really does not have any control over.

Under this bill there is an item called regulations, which you and your department have already control over, as minister. It is quite easy for you to address some of the concerns in this thing through maybe the regulations, which you are doing here. There is no question here. I see some of this - and do not get me wrong, I am not speaking against the whole body of this bill. I am just speaking about the timing of this and the urgency for it. I think there are other ways that we can compensate and protect our young kids, our young people and some of our young adults, as well as some of the people who are walking, because in a lot of communities the only problem that is going on with ATVs is the responsible use of them. People are irresponsible in their use, and that is the problem with it.

Putting a sticker with a larger number - again, I do not know how much bigger - I am an ATV owner myself and proud of it. I enjoy it. I use it. My son and my wife, we all share that but we use it responsibly. By putting a larger sticker on these bikes - for anyone who own one, I do not know how large a sticker you are going to want to put on there for identification purposes, because there is not a lot of room on these things to put a sticker. If you put it down low on the fenders, it will be covered in mud and you will not see it . There are a lot of places there that are not there. Each bike now, when it is purchased, is given a licence plate to attach to it. It is not much smaller than that of a car. So if a person can get a licence plate number of a car, surely Heavens, they can get a licence plate number of a bike.

Most of the time what is a happening here, you have people who are irresponsible in their behaviour,. Like the people who passed me on Harvey Street, the people who pull out and pass me on the Valley Road, the people who pass me on Church Road in Victoria, and the people who pass me on the beach in Salmon Cove. Everyone knows that you are not allowed to use these vehicles in those places. So, the trick to this is find some extra funding, other than through these fines right now. Find some extra funding and get a detail out there in various parts of the Province over the summer months and get into doing something that would be proactive instead of doing something that is reactive. Even to a point of promoting some training, some in-school talks by the RCMP in rural areas of the Province. It is great right here in the city. We have the RNC who go in and talk about drugs. They have the great DARE program. If we had some resources freed up for the rural parts of this Province, we could get out there and find a way to have the police access the schools on a yearly basis and go in and give some driver education programs. Community policing in rural Newfoundland right now is suffering. Some municipalities had to forsake their municipal police officer to try to keep their budgets balanced. I know Carbonear was one of them.

These are some of the things - I notice there is not a great lot of interest in what I am saying over there, but I hope my thoughts are not failing on deaf ears. I recall back here last fall, before Christmas, I think we were up to the day before we were closing the House, when we were passing the snowmobile legislation regarding the trails and the licensing of snowmobiles, and there was consultation promised then. To my knowledge - and I stand to be corrected - but to my knowledge I do not think we have had any. I fear the same thing will happen to this. We have different parts in our Province but we should all be treated alike. Labrador and the Island portion here - I think we here on the Island portion deserve consultation as well as they do in Labrador because there are some serious deficiencies with what I have here. I will say again, and it is an expression I do not like using, it is a case of using a sledge hammer to kill a fly.

Every single life is important. Minister, I see you shaking your head. Every single life is important, but also another thing that is well known is that Newfoundlanders are law abiding citizens. I heard somebody say this morning about his grandson. Well, he said, my grandson is very responsible on his bike, I supervise him when he is on it, and I am going to make sure that he is going to stay on his bike. That is the wrong thing that we should be promoting by making legislation without looking at the whole thing. A fourteen year old boy or girl - I have seen some of them, I look at them, and some fourteen year olds are taller than I am, they can pat me on the head. They have sneakers that big, you know a half a dozen pairs - and I am sure we all experience that - you get a couple of fourteen year olds coming to your house and they fill up your front porch with two pairs of sneakers.

I say to the government again, lets put this off until the fall, get some consultation over the next little while, get some of the stakeholders, some of the people who have inventories of ATVs, some of the people who are out there using these things and using them responsibly, and lets get some enforcement in place so that we can crack down on the people who are being irresponsible, who are drinking, and using our public highways with these vehicles.

Thank you.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to just say a few words on Bill 36, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicle Act.

Madam Speaker, again, as the previous speaker has noted, consultation should have taken place on this issue with the public and with the users of ATVs. There are an awful lot of people in this Province, probably more on a per capita basis then anywhere else in the country, who use the outdoors for recreation. Much of that, Madam Speaker, involves their families as a unit. I can tell firsthand. I mean, I have had a cabin ever since I have been on my own and both of my kids were raised, probably as much up in my cabin as they were at my home. That is true for a lot of people in this Province, Madam Speaker. Most of the kids grow up in our Province learning how to be responsible operators of skidoos, of ATVs, and of boats and motors. That is not to say we do not have accidents and tragedies, Madam Speaker, because we all know that happens.

You know, one of the things that happens when a person has children - and that is who this bill is directed at for the most part - one of the things that occurs when you have a cabin when your children are relatively young, then they certainly are straining at the reins in order to get to the cabin on a Friday afternoon. As they get older, they are not so interested in doing that, but the one thing that draws them to the cabin, more than anything else, is the toys they can use while they are there, in terms of skidoos and in terms of ATVs .

I agree with a lot of the things that are in place for safety measures, like the use of helmets. That is something that is necessary and people should be wearing them whenever they are out and about on the machines. I do not know if age fourteen - I guess it is hard to draw a line and say where the cutoff should be. If a person is supervised, then I am not sold on the principle that age fourteen is a magic number, that once you hit it you are able to go on your own. Most of the young people in this Province now who have grown up with ATVs at their cabins or in their backyards, depending on where you live, by the time they hit fourteen they know a fair bit about the machines. Under this system, and if they follow the law to the tee, to the letter, Madam Speaker, at age fourteen they are just going to be able to learn. I am not sure if that is a good idea or not. I have mixed feelings on this, although I do support the minister in what she is trying to achieve here, which is the safety of young people in the Province.

I think you will find two varying views on this, Madam Speaker. I think the safety aspect of what this bill is attempting to do, I don't think you will find too many arguments with throughout the Province anywhere, but I think you will find varying degrees of opinions in urban areas of this Province versus the rural areas of the Province. I mean, in the urban areas of the Province young people probably use an ATV, for the most part, probably two or three weekends out of a year, when they go with their parents out to a cabin somewhere where they normally don't frequent, whereas in the rural areas it is a way of life. It is something that you not only do on weekends, but in the evenings during the week as well. I think that is something that is not taken into consideration here.

I also wonder about the exemption on the North Coast of Labrador, the northern areas that are not connected by roads. If safety is the real issue that is at heart here, Madam Speaker, then when you get these vehicles and say that if a community is not connected by a road, then they are going to be exempt from this, I mean, there are areas in this Province that are not connected by road. Are they going to be exempt from this legislation as well? The irony that I see in this - I see the Chair is changed - Mr. Speaker, is that these machines, for the most part, are used off-road, so does it really matter if you have a road in your community or not when even the people who do have roads in their community, the use for these machines is off-road. In that respect, the only difference between the two sets of communities is that one has a road network through by the Province, a provincial road, that these machines are not allowed to be used on anyway, so the areas in the Province where these machines can be used is identical. It is off-road. The fact that a community does not have a road, I am not sure if the minister can explain what effect that has. I know she can talk about a mode of transportation but, in most areas of this Province - in the area that I lived in before we had a road network service, we did not have any roads or were connected to anywhere outside, but we still had to follow the rules in the Province in terms of licensing and insurances and all the other stuff.

These are just a few comments that I have, Mr. Speaker. Again, I say to the minister, I am not against what she is attempting to do here, because we have all seen the tragedies as they have unfolded throughout the Province in any given year, but I do question the lack of consultation with the Province that is going to be created in urban versus rural areas of the Province. I think there should have been more flexibility built into this and more consultation with the people of the Province.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): If the hon. the Minister of Government Services speaks now, she will close debate at second reading.

The hon. the Minister.

MS WHALEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Why this legislation is here today is because the medical profession and the public pleaded with this government to do something and get some controls on the abuse of ATVs in this Province and the children who were being injured.

I look at it this way, when you see 400 people injured with ATV related injuries and 20 per cent of them are children, we have a very serious problem here. We see more than a dozen children hospitalized over a period of a year, each year, with ATV related injuries.

We polled the public and 87 per cent of the public wanted to see the government do something about this. We have been saying for well over a year that we wanted to do something with new legislation to look at the ATVs, and we made a commitment, this government, to do just that. I have consulted with various groups, I have consulted with ATV users, I have consulted with the RNC, I have consulted with the RCMP, I have consulted with the Federation of Municipalities, the medical profession, and the list goes on. There have been consultations done here, and the only thing we are dealing with today in this bill is the ATVs.

What I did say about Labrador, for the hon. member, was that there were not consultations done in Labrador because of the reliance down there and the communities that were not connected by road. We did want to have some dialogue and some consultations with the community leaders there and we are planning on doing that in the next couple of months overall, when we go to talk about the snowmobiles. We have also committed to consult on snowmobiles.

Mr. Speaker, the reason this is here is a safety issue for the children in this Province. My hon. colleagues talked about how he liked his ATV, but we are not legislating adult age here, we are legislating the children. For children under fourteen years of age they are not permitted on those bikes. The simple reason is that the medical profession says they don't have the judgement, they don't have the maturity, and they don't have the physical strength to operate those powerful machines, and when they roll over on their little bodies, that impact, they cannot take it.

Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned, as a government, about the safety of our children here. This is why this legislation is here today, and I ask the hon. members for support today on this bill.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 36, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act, be now read a second 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 Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act. (Bill 36)

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 in the day, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Later today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 36)

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

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

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider matters related to the following bills: Bill 35, Bill 39, Bill 26, Bill 38, Bill 36, and Bill 20.

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 Bill 20, Bill 26, Bill 35, Bill 36, Bill 39, and Bill 38.

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 these bills?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act." (Bill 35)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 4.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 4 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 4 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 4 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, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act.

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 35, An Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 35 is carried.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act." (Bill 39)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act.

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 39, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 39 is carried.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act." (Bill 26)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 5 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 to 5 are carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 5 carried.

CLERK: Clause 6.

CHAIR: Shall clause 6 carry?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

There are three minor amendments. I have discussed these with my colleague the Opposition House Leader, and my colleague the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I believe, to the best of my knowledge, they are in accordance and in agreement with them. These are minor amendments affecting dates as opposed to - I will read them for the record.

Amendment 1: Clause 6 of the Bill is amended by striking out in the proposed subsection 62.1(2) the words and date "Not later than August 1, 2005" and substituting the word and date "Effective August 1, 2005".

The second amendment deals with the same clause: Clause 6 of the Bill is amended by striking out in the proposed subsection 62.1(3) the date "August 1, 2005" and substituting the date "September 1, 2005".

The third amendment in 6.3 does the same thing: Clause 6 of the Bill is amended by striking out in the proposed subsection 62.1.(4) the date "August 1, 2005" and substituting the date "September 1, 2005".

CHAIR: Order, please!

Shall the three amendments to clause 6, as proposed by the Government House Leader, carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The amendments are carried.

On motion, amendments carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 6 carry, as amended?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 6 carried, as amended.

On motion, clause 6, as amended, carried.

CLERK: Clause 7.

CHAIR: Shall clause 7 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 7 is carried.

On motion, clause 7 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, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act. (Bill 26)

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 26, An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act, carried with amendments?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 26, with amendments, is carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendments, carried.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Bill 38, An Act To Amend The Lobbyists Registration Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Lobbyists Registration Act." (Bill 38)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 2 is carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Clause 3.

CHAIR: Shall clause 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 3 is carried.

On motion, clause 3 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, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Lobbyists Registration Act. (Bill 38)

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 38, An Act To Amend The Lobbyists Registration Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 38 is carried.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

Bill 36, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act." (Bill 36)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I note that the minister is not present. I wanted to ask the minister whether or not she is prepared to undertake something that I asked last year, which I think was a very important piece of work. Maybe someone else can speak for her, but we now have new proposed ATV regulations.

This time last year I was asking the minister, given that we had a couple of weeks left before school was out, whether or not this was a good opportunity to get a brochure in the hands of school children because it seemed pretty obvious to me last year, from my experience in seeing kids drive ATVs in rural areas, that children either did not know what the law was, did not know what the penalties were or were quite prepared to flagrantly abuse them. I thought that before school was out, there was a good opportunity to get a brochure on the regulations so that school children and their parents, assuming they bring these things home, would have access to the facts as to what the rules were. I mean the media obviously is there but the best way to find out about regulations before you get an RCMP officer tapping you on the shoulder and giving you a ticket or a $500 fine or a $200 fine - because the whole purpose of these regulations, Mr. Chair, is not to collect money for the Minister of Justice. He has enough money in his coffers. I hope he does. He has a budget approved by the Cabinet.

So the purpose is not to raise money. The purpose is to regulate the behaviour of people in the Province for safety reasons. We do not want children driving ATVs who are not old enough to drive them; who medical experts have advised the minister are not capable of handling them. If these regulations are going to be effective in preventing injuries and deaths and accidents on our highways, where they should not be in the first place, than people have to know about them. There is a real opportunity between now and the close of the school in the second or third week of June, whenever they close in various places, to have a brochure in the hands of every school child of the appropriate age. I guess you do not need them, hopefully you do not need them for K to 3. Maybe you do need them for elementary and high school students to know that these regulations are something that are going to be enforced over the coming summer and that we are going to expect that people will abide by these regulations because they are different and they are changed.

I would suspect that many people did not even know what the existing regulations were. It seems apparent, Mr. Chair, by what has been happening in the past, that children even younger then were permitted under the old regulations were driving these ATVs in an unsupervised manner, and maybe explain to people what supervision actually means because I have not read the detail of the legislation, but supervision of somebody on an ATV needs to be clearly understood what is required by that. Supervision does not mean giving the kid a key and telling them to come back in an hour. So, we have to have somebody understanding what exactly supervision means and making sure that young people and their families know about these rules, know what the rules require, and know that they are going to be enforced.

So, I am asking whether the minister can confirm that this is part of the minister's plans this year to ensure that this type of information is available to school children, because they are the ones who we are talking about here. Children under sixteen years of age are going to be severely restricted in their operation of these machines, and knowing exactly what the rules are should be an important part of that. So, I am asking the minister if she can confirm that they will do that?

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Chair, we are, indeed, doing a brochure to be mailed out to all households to inform them of these new changes.

I also want to add that I was at the school this week talking to the children about ATVs. So we are indeed, and you did raise that point in the hon. House here last year when you asked me about ATVs and we did commit to doing a brochure.

Thank you.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 7.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 7 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Clauses 2 to 7 are carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 7 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Assembly 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, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act.

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 36, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 36 is carried.

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

[Continuation of today's sitting will be found in Hansard 29A]


May 19, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 29A


[Continuation of Sitting]

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Bill 20, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Smoking In Public Places And The Workplace.

The Committee has passed the sections of this act up to clause 6 and now ready to debate clause 7.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The last time we sat in committee with respect to this bill, I was raising a question. I do not have any proposed amendment with respect to clause 7, but again seeking clarification, because this is the appointment of inspectors. Again, just for information purposes for those who may be following this with some interest.

Section 7.(1) says, "The minister may appoint inspectors to inspect public places; and facilities, to ensure compliance with this Act." That is normally liquor inspectors, I would think, and that is what I am asking for clarification of because there are not very many of those in the Province.

Section 7.(2) talks about, "The minister responsible for the Occupational Health and Safety Act may appoint inspectors to inspect workplaces to ensure compliance with this Act." So, there are two different categories and I was just seeking some clarification. I think we were about to get the answer yesterday before we rose the committee and adjourned for the day.

CHAIR: The hon. the Acting Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman, in section 7 the minister may appoint inspectors. The reason is referenced in subsection (2) there. It says, "The minister responsible for the Occupational Health and Safety Act may appoint inspectors to inspect workplaces to ensure compliance with this Act." Well, there is already authority under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for doing that, so they may also carry out inspection under this act. In total, there are about - I guess inspectors working for government, the minister can confirm - forty to fifty inspectors.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Forty-six, she informs me, working for government overall. That gives authority under these two.

The question was mentioned yesterday, I believe it was asked - it is in the process of working out an enforcement aspect and that is in the plan, and appropriate procedures to follow on that to make sure that enforcement personnel are there. We realize that enforcement is going to be needed. It is important. That is being worked on and will be available. This will give provision to broaden the scope of the number of inspectors and so on to be able to carry out that.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I guess the real question that is being raised here by the Leader of the Official Opposition is the question as to whether this act is going to be enforced at all. I have a suspicion that it is not, Mr. Chairman. The reason I have that suspicion is because when I see the way the scheme of this act before the House - we have provisions under 7.(1) and (2) for certain inspectors being appointed, some under this act and some under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and they are also allowed to give tickets. Now, we know what tickets are, Mr. Chairman. Tickets are something that can easily be passed out. I get parking tickets lots of times, Mr. Chairman. Write out a ticket, a violation of the act, your meter expired. You didn't have a quarter when you parked, you get a ticket. You get a ticket for violating a parking regulation, and a ticket is an easy way - a very easy way - to commence the proceeding, as the Minister of Justice well knows. You pass out a ticket, and if you do not pay your ticket you end up in court.

It seems to me, if you look at the act, it is really designed to be easy to be enforced. Somebody smoking in a bar - a ticket. Someone smoking in a bar, the premises that are allowing them to smoke, we give the owner a ticket. What leads me to believe, Mr. Chairman, that the act is not going to be enforced is because, if they gave out tickets, guess what? Most of the bars would be closed down, because this act says that if you violate the act you lose your liquor licence, and the Liquor Board has no choice.

Now, you can violate all kinds of other acts, like the Criminal Code. You can have an indecent show, an indecent theatrical performance, and all that sort of stuff. You can have nudie shows and you can have striptease. You do not lose your licence for that, but if there is a person smoking in your bar and you have not ensured, as the act says, that people are not complying with the act and are not smoking, you get a ticket and you lose your licence, because the Liquor Licensing Board is required - required - to pull your licence. Shall cancel, it says later.

Now, I understand there is an amendment coming in and you do not lose your licence under the first ticket. If you get two tickets you lose your licence. Now that is like saying, Mr. Chairman, if I get two parking tickets they are going to pull my motor registration - not allowed to drive a car any more. Not allowed to drive a car any more because you got two parking tickets, cannot have that car on the road.

If that was the law, Mr. Chairman, I dare say they would not be passing out too many parking tickets because, you know what? People would be up in arms. They would say: What kind of a law is that? What kind of government do we have? Do we have any respect for this government or this law, when I get two parking tickets and I cannot drive any more?

Yet, this legislation is going to say if there are two people smoking in my bar on two different occasions and somebody, an inspector, decides to give a ticket - they do not have to give a ticket. Section 8 says they do not have to. They do not have to give a ticket, but who is going to police that? The inspectors have the right to enforce the law. So, either they are going to enforce the law or they are not. Maybe some inspectors will enforce it in one way and other inspectors will enforce it in another way. Somebody might be lucky enough to have ten mornings and get no tickets, and somebody might be unlucky enough to be caught twice and get two tickets and lose his licence. Now, what kind of a law is that? What kind of a law is that?

We give the Liquor Licensing Board all kinds of authority. I mean, I went through a lot of it yesterday. We give the Liquor Licensing Board all kinds of authority, all kinds of discretion. Some of it may surprise you, Mr. Chairman. Some of the discretion we give the board may surprise you; because, do you know, for example, that the Liquor Licensing Board can refuse a person a licence to have a liquor establishment because the act says a licence shall not be granted to a person unless he or she is an appropriate person to keep and operate the kind of premises in respect of which the licence is sought.

Now, do you know what that means? Let's say the premises is a restaurant and they want a restaurant licence, are you kind the person who is appropriate, an appropriate person, to run that restaurant? If the Liquor Board doesn't think you are, they can say no. They have a lot of discretion there. The board may refuse an application, for example, where the past conduct with an individual establishes reasonable grounds for the belief that the applicant will not carry on business according with the law, and with integrity and honesty.

You know, there is lots of discretion there. They can suspend - this is very interesting - the licence may be suspended or cancelled by the board where there is a failure by the licensee to comply with the conditions that might be set out in section 1 or section 2 in terms of conformity with the laws of the land, et cetera.

So, we have discretion for the board to suspend or refuse or cancel a licence in certain circumstances. That discretion - we have decided, as a Province, that we are going to have that kind of right in the Liquor Licensing Board to police the operation of bars, but we are going to take away the discretion if somebody has a conviction or is guilty of a breach of the Smoke-free Environment Act. That discretion, which is there for all sorts of other things - the discretion is there even if you are running an indecent show. I read them all out yesterday, all the various sections of the Criminal Code, which involve nude theatrical acts, performing indecent acts, and all sorts of problems that could come up if people are violating the Criminal Code. The board has the authority, in these circumstances, to suspend or cancel a licence but they do not have any discretion if they are guilty of a breach of the Smoke-free Environment Act.

Somebody used the expression a little earlier, I think it was the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, and talked about using a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito. I guess that means, obviously, a bit of overkill. I think we have a situation here, we have a setup for a ‘ticketable' offence, usually meaning the kind of offence that you would expect to be enforced on a regular basis. We will make it easy to enforce, make it easy to lay a charge. You do not have to go through the trouble of issuing a summons and having it served on them; you just write out a ticket. That is a good way to enforce a rule that you want complied with, like parking, for example. After a while, even people like me get fed up with paying parking tickets and I will make sure that I have some quarters in my pocket instead of having to pay the ticket. You want people to comply with these regulations, so you give them tickets until they do comply.

The government has decided that, instead of doing that, we are going to say, if you have two tickets you are going to lose your licence. Two strikes and you are out. The Americans have a big law called three strikes and you are out. You go to prison for life if you are guilty of three felony convictions in certain states in the United States. That was considered so outrageous that there have been challenges before the Supreme Court of the United States, but we are satisfied that two strikes and you are out with respect to smoking; you are going to lose your licence to run a bar.

I think that is wrong, Mr. Chairman. The fact of the matter is that you either do one thing or the other: either you enforce the legislation, and have laws that support that enforcement, or you do not. By having the penalty - not the fine, the penalty - so extreme that you cannot enforce it, then you are not going to get compliance, unless you are not going to bother to enforce it at all because you do not have enough inspectors to do it.

I would rather see a situation where the inspectors have the power to ticket and impose fines, have fines be imposed on people by the courts to encourage compliance, than I would have the legislation so draconian, with such enormous consequences, that they would not bother to enforce it at all.

What kind of a problem are you going to have if, for example, an individual who is in an establishment and sees somebody smoking and says: I have a problem with this, I am going to make a complaint? They make a complaint but nobody lays a charge. The reason they do not lay a charge is because they do not want someone to lose their licence. They do not think it serious enough. So the public then, who wants to have a smoke-free environment to go to, or a worker who is entitled to a smoke-free environment according to the act, wants someone to lay a charge and the inspector says: No, no, I am not going to lay a charge because it is not serious enough to lose somebody's licence. We are going to give them another chance. We are not going to lay a charge this time. What kind of confidence are the public going to have in regulations when the inspectors will not lay a charge because the consequence on the owner is too serious?

If the Minister of Environment had a law which said if the refinery in Come by Chance violated the air pollution act they could be charged and fined up to half a million dollars, he might be happy enough to lay the charge or have one of his inspectors lay the charge. If the law said: if you are convicted of violating the air pollution act you shut down the refinery. He will not lay the charge, I will guarantee you that. He will not lay the charge because the consequences for somebody making a brief violation of the air pollution act are too strenuous. He might send an inspector out and say: Don't do it again. But he will not lay a charge, I will guarantee you that.

If the Occupational Health and Safety Act is going to be enforced, there are two ways to enforce it. You enforce it by issuing a ticket and having the workers able to lay a complaint; having a worker able to have confidence that if they lay a complaint, maybe somebody will be charged and maybe they will conform to that behaviour. If they make a complaint and the Minister of Health now says: Oh, no, we can't lay a charge here. We are working with them. We are trying to get them to conform to the act.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that his time has elapsed.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

By leave, just for another minute.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: That is the problem that I have, Mr. Chairman. We have a situation where people have been looking forward to this legislation coming forward. The people that we are talking about are two categories. One, are the people who work in bars, who do not want to be forced to work in a smoking environment. The second group of people are the people who want to go to bars, who do not want to be confronted with a smoking environment. Neither one of those groups of people are going to be happy with a situation where charges will not be laid, where tickets will not be issued because it would result in a bar being shut down. I do not think this Minister of Health or the acting minister or the other minister when he gets back on the job, or the Minister of Government Services, who is supposed to enforce the Occupational Health and Safety Act, is going to take responsibility for shutting down a bar in order to force the legislation.

What is going to happen here, Mr. Chairman, is going to be a slack situation. It is not going be a level of enforcement that is required. The reason for it is going to be the provisions of this legislation, being the overkill contained in another section of the act. If you are going to provide for ticketing, set up a situation where the tickets can be granted. That is what I say, Mr. Chairman, and not have such daconian legislation that it is impractical to be followed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Shall clause 7 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 7 is carried.

On motion, clause 7 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 8 to 12.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 8 to 12 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, no objection to clauses 8 to 12 carrying, but I did have, again, a couple of questions with respect to clause 11 that I just might ask at this point in time.

Clause 11, "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council..." of course, which is the Cabinet, "...may make regulations..." - and then it pertains to several things: prescribing signs, respecting the independent ventilation of designated smoking rooms. That is what we talked about yesterday, where the Cabinet itself will decide what kinds of equipment actually qualifies to be put into a designated smoking room. The one I am interested in though, is the idea that the Cabinet can make rules exempting events, areas, buildings or parts of buildings from the application of this act.

I would just like some clarification with respect to that, Mr. Chairman, from this point of view. It clearly states that the intention of the government is to, at certain points in time, allow smoking to occur in a smoke-free space, otherwise there would be no need to have a regulation saying that you can allow a building or a part of a building to be exempted from this act. So, they obviously must have something in their minds, something that they have discussed, something that the committee heard which would suggest that a facility that has to be smoke free by law, at some point in time, if given permission by the government, can then become a smoking facility again. I do not know what they are. I have not heard any public discussion of it.

The questions that have been brought to our attention, because of how a public place and a public space is defined - and I received the third call again, actually, just before I came to the Legislature - was the people who run these outdoor concerts and festivals, like: Splash, the Salmon Festival in Grand Falls, the Klondike Festival, there are a number around, and there have been concerns as to whether or not the definition of a public place and a public space includes them, because most of them are held in recreation areas and those kinds of things, and there is language about that.

So, there are two parts. If we can get the answer to the two questions, I will not belabour it. One, what is the status of outdoor concerts in that outdoor space, while it is a confined entrance and it has a liquor licence? Are you allowed to smoke outdoors in a place like the Salmon Festival or the Klondike Festival, yes or no? I would like to know that answer because the people who are involved in organizing them have asked us to find out that answer. They are not sure. Secondly, can they give some examples of when it is that a facility, which is going to become smoke-free upon the passing of this act, can then file some kind of application with the government, request the government to be smoking for a certain event or a certain period of time?

CHAIR: The hon. the Acting Minister of Health.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This act exemption gives opportunity - for example, the Salmon Festival or Klondike days or those events, to have an opportunity to be able to allow in an area where you can consume alcohol. Normally, the consumption of alcohol - if you want to look under the Food and Drug Act, too. If you want to consume alcohol in those areas, technically you would have to be exempted. That is the purpose of regulation, to allow an exemption to occur for events such as these. So, this would give the opportunity to make that a regulation, to permit that to occur, for example, at the Salmon Festival.

The intent of the regulations is to be able to deal with events such as these. I guess with every event there will be set regulations and, of course, to allow for exemptions it would have to depend on a variety of things that they could look at. For instance, it referenced here details, like signs and providing use where they are smoking. That is intended to be where smoking - maybe the size of a sign or location, the visibility displayed. Other areas might be, what constitutes a space? If it is outdoors and it is completely covered with awnings and the sides are enclosed, as opposed to having open sides or outdoor spaces. Regulations would deal with the specifics of that nature to be able to make a decision to allow it where, I guess, risk could be minimized to people who want to be able to visit there and entertain in open spaces. I am sure the regulations would be certainly more lenient for special events, and that is intended to be for special occasions like that, not on an ongoing part of your establishment to be able to conduct it in your own space.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thought we were on clause 8, and I do not know if it matters. We have not passed clause 8 yet, so I just want to make a few comments about it.

I have a question for the minister. If I am either an employee or a patron who is concerned about smoking in an establishment that I happen to be in, I guess the question is: Who are you going to call? Ghostbusters are not available, so who are you going to call? Are you going to call an inspector? Are you going to call the police? Are you going to call the liquor licensing board? Do you call the police? Who actually has the power to give out these tickets that are provided for in the other place, because clause 8 says that an inspector can either lay a charge or not?

Clause 8 says, "Where an inspector finds that an operator, employer or owner of a workplace, public place or facility is not complying with a provision of this Act..." - in other words, there are people smoking who are not supposed to be - the inspector may order the operator or owner to comply with the act. I do not know what that does. I mean, the act says they have to comply with the act. Now the inspector is going to say: Oh, this act that you are not complying with, you are required to comply with that. So, the inspector can order them to do that and he can order them to require the order to be carried out immediately. In other words, you have to stop that person from smoking now or carry it out within the period of time that the inspector specifies. Okay, I am going to come back in an hour, if that person is still smoking I am going to give you a ticket. Now, that seems to me to be an unsatisfactory way to enforce a regulation that is designed for public health and safety.

I would think, Mr. Chairman, that if I were a person who went to a bar because I heard about these great new regulations which said that I could now go to a bar and listen to music or have a meal or whatever, without being inundated with second-hand smoke, and yet there are people smoking in the bar, what exactly do I do about it? Do I try and phone the Minister of Health and ask him who he has appointed as inspectors? Can I expect the local police to enforce it? Is it only going to be enforced by the two or three liquor licensing inspectors that are available in town, or does the Minister of Transportation and Works - is the minister going to have available Occupational Health and Safety officers when the bars are open at midnight and 1:00 o'clock in the morning that I can call to get this enforced? So, my real question here, Mr. Chairman, is there any intention on the part of government to have this enforceable by the citizenry, by the employees who are going to subjected to the second-hand smoke or by the patrons who want to be able to go to a smoke-free environment?

We are talking about inspectors who can order compliance or whatever, but is there going to be any mechanism which says that if you have a problem with people smoking in a bar you have a solution at 12:00 o'clock at night or 12:30 at night, some bars are open until 2:00 o'clock, or are we going to have a situation where there is a general laxity about enforcement here? I would like to know, and I guess the public wants to know, that this is being brought in with great fanfare after a lot of consultation, but I have a real question here about how actually it is going to be enforced. Are the inspectors going to be given instructions to take it easy for a while? To just say: Look, you had better clean up your act because the next time I might give you a ticket, and if we give you two, you are going to lose your licence. Is that the plan of the minister, or is it going to be something that the minister expects to be followed out from the very beginning and that people actually have some recourse if they walk into a bar and people are smoking in the bar?

I think people are really wondering about that, Mr. Chairman. I think there is an expectation that after this act is passed on July 1, that people will be able to go down to George Street and enjoy some music or go to their local tavern, wherever it is across the Province, and be able to enjoy a smoke-free environment. I want to know what plans the minister has to ensure that this is actually going to be the case after July 1?

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the acting Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Right now in our Province, the big majority of buildings in our Province are smoke-free right now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. Well, the majority are smoke-free.

So, who inspects them now? What problems have arisen now for the last number of years when it was passed? What is going to happen now that there is a smaller number, the ban has spread now to include bars and bingo halls. The ones that are added to the current inspection list now are bars and bingo halls. They are the new ones added. Everything else was included.

This building and other buildings around the Province, arenas, recreation centres, bingo halls, some did it voluntarily, they are all now under that particular regulation right now. We have not heard of any great problems enforcing that. I think people have been very responsible in doing so. What is going to happen now when we are adding these incremental ones onto that? We are going to increase the effort in inspection. We are broadening the scope here, the clause in the act, and we are going to put in extra effort to do it. If you are going to bring in laws that you do not have any intention of enforcing, why bring them in? So we are going to increase the enforcing effort. We are looking at that aspect now. How it is going to be delivered and how it is going to be able to be utilized to do that. What is the point of bringing in something you cannot enforce and you have no intention of enforcing? You may as well open it all up.

I will say, that the significant amount of people in the Province who utilize facilities respect the rules and regulations that are in place in our Province. A majority of people respect them and will respect them. There are some instances, yes. I guess that is why initially in number 8, for example, an inspector may tell you to response to that immediately or in a period of time. That is just not that specific. I could use an example, because under the current act as proposed - and I am going to move an amendment in section 13. Under the act that is proposed, as you see there now, if an inspector sees someone smoking, charges them and charges the owner of that building, whether it is a bar or whether it is not, according to this, if they are convicted they shall lose their licence, if it is a bar. There are fines that shall be paid in the case where it is not a bar.

The inspector now has discretion. If an individual is there causing problems and the owner is having difficulty dealing with the individual who is smoking - I cannot speak for an inspector, but if you put yourself in the situation - the owner is being co-operative but the patron is not and the patron is charged, you try to deal reasonably with the owner. You are not going to charge them when they are doing their utmost and their best to do that. They are going to have to deal with people who are in their establishment. They are the patrons, they are supporting that establishment. It is difficult to put someone out. I have been in that position before, I can tell you, one that I was an owner and operator of. I had to deal with people. I had to eject them from the building for other purposes. It is a difficulty when anybody is patronizing your establishment.

I would hope that where there is co-operation shown by the owner of an establishment that there might be some tolerance or a period of time to be able to do that, but there will be no excuse for the individual who is violating that. That is pretty obvious. There will be properly posted signs. That is why it is going to be properly posted. It is going to be visible. There are going to be regulations to deal with that - that it can be seen. There is no doubt that they are aware of that. We will do a campaign to make sure that it is publicized and it is out there; as much effort into that as possible. That is what will happen.

We are adding incremental numbers that are significantly less than the buildings that are now exempt from it right now at this moment, but still I realize in areas where there are liquor establishments and so on, there is a higher tendency of people smoking and it might be more difficult, I can appreciate that, but we are going to have to increase the effort to be able to do that.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So, I guess what the minister is saying is that he is going to enforce the regulation against bars by a process of inspection over a period of time.

My real question was: Who are you going to call? I guarantee you, Mr. Chairman, that when people go to bars after July 1 and see smoking, they are going to want to know, what do they do? Do they write a letter to the Minister of Health and say: I was witness to violation of the act, or that there is smoking going on in this bar, apparently tolerated by the operator? Do they call an inspector? What inspector do they call? Do they call the health inspector? Do they call your department the next day and ask that an inspection be done? Can they lay their own charge or what? People are going to want to know. This is not like the liquor laws themselves. I guess if a bar is supposed to close 1:00 and they are open to 1:15, or they sell a drink 1:10 or whatever, I do not know how many people would actually complain about that. That is something that the liquor corporation, or the liquor licensing people go around and inspect, and they enforce because they have to try and, generally, keep the bars within the confines of the law and the licensing requirements.

Well, we are talking about here something that affects patrons of a bar. I am talking specifically about bars, not about public buildings in general, but bars and bingo halls, because there are only two groups of people who would like to see this enforced. There are the employees and there are the patrons. If a patron walks into a bar and expects to have a smoke-free environment and finds that it is not, they are going to want something done about it. If they do not have the right to lay their own information, or make their own charge and they have to wait for an inspector - and I understand someone said the other day that there were three liquor inspectors for all of Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not know if they are the inspectors that we are talking about because I gather the inspectors we are talking about here are inspectors that the Minister of Health has, so they must be health inspectors. I do not know how many of them there are and whether they are going to be going around. Do they work nine-to-five, or do they work when the bars are open?

These are the questions that I think people are legitimately going to ask when they are trying to find out whether the government is serious about this legislation. Because it is one thing to go to workplaces, most of which are daytime workplaces or public buildings, most of which are only open in the day time, and to move to a regime where you are required not only to enforce this legislation in workplaces but also in bingo halls - they are only operating for a certain number of hours - and also in bars which are open, in some cases, until 2 o'clock in the morning.

I am curious as to whether the minister plans to have a new group of inspectors who are going to look after bars or whether people would have to write a letter to the Minister of Health if they end up in a bar and they see someone smoking and the owner not doing anything about it? Can the minister enlighten us on that?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Obviously, just like we cannot have a police officer by every building in the Province to prevent break-ins, you cannot have an inspector in every building. Generally, what could very well happen, you can complain to the liquor corporation, you can complain to Government Services, you can complain to government. We will do a process. Who do you complain to right now? Who do you complain to now? If someone wants to form a complaint on an establishment that they are violating it, it is only logical to follow up on a complaint. So a significant number - you would never put enough people to work to police it fifteen or sixteen hours a day. That is obvious.

The same with police officers. You would never meet all those demands. You cannot guarantee that every section of a highway is policed from speeding and those areas. Everybody who violates on an ATV, does not have a helmet on or everybody who is underage operates. That is impossible to expect that, or everybody who catches a salmon illegally or does any particular process. There will be an increased effort in this area. There will be an opportunity for people to register a complaint. The general public does not want to be in facilities where they are exposed to it. If that is the case, a complaint will be followed. If you want to file it with who is responsible, government is responsible to enforce it. If it is a complaint, do it. It will be followed up on. Also, there will be an increased effort to have a presence to be able to ensure that it is not violated, and that presence will be increased. There is a process being worked out to give a fair service, a fair amount of effort in this particular area to control that from day one, so that it does not get to that situation.

So, effort will be put. How many and what hours of operation? Well, police are probably not going to tell you what hours of operation they are going to show up at establishments or places either, the same as any other inspectors there. There is lots of information. Government will work on a schedule and they will do that accordingly, and we will certainly respond to any complaints that anybody wants to make on it. The majority of people do not smoke. They want the right not to be exposed to it. If it is being violated, I am sure that quickly gets around. If we have to monitor and take action to do it, we will certainly do what we can to enforce any of the laws that we are aware of that are being broken; not only this one, but any other laws that are a danger to people. That is one of the purposes of bringing this in.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It seems, from looking at the act, though, the only person who can actually lay a charge under the act or commence a proceeding under the act is an inspector. So, I guess, as you just said, it would be like any other act, the ATV regulations or any other regulations. Well, I am not so sure, Mr. Chairman, because if I see somebody violating the ATV regulations, I can phone the cops. I can phone the police, and if there are police nearby and they have nothing else more important to do, they might come by and actually charge somebody. But under this, Mr. Chairman, I cannot phone the police. The police are not going to enforce this. Police do not have any rights to lay any charges under the Smoke-free Environment Act. It is only inspectors who are appointed by the Minister of Health. So, unless the Minister of Health intends to appoint all the police officers in the Province - maybe they are. Maybe they are going to appoint all the police officers.

What I am saying, I guess, is that if somebody is in a bar and sees people smoking, it is not the intention - maybe that is the way the minister has planned - to have it enforced specifically. It is only going to be enforced the same way the liquor law is enforced. If somebody is generally violating the act, not following it, if an inspector happens to catch them they might enforce, they might lay a charge, they might tell them: Boy, you had better clean up your act. Maybe that is the plan of the minister. If that is the case, maybe it is all right, but I will tell the minister that a lot of people are not going to be very happy if that is the way the minister chooses to enforce this regulation because people have an expectation, as a result of this act, that after July 1 they will be able to go into a bar and enjoy the bar without being exposed to second-hand smoke. I guess it is up to the minister, I suppose. It is his legislation. If he wants to say we are going to have -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) if he wants to move an amendment to beef up the enforcement, move an amendment.

MR. HARRIS: I do not have a problem with the enforcement, I say to the minister. What I have a problem with is the fact that the minister has provisions there that - providing for tickets and compliance, which I would be very happy with. I would be very happy -

MR. SULLIVAN: Propose an amendment to do what you want done.

MR. HARRIS: Well, I proposed an amendment yesterday, and I will get to that later on.

What I would really like to see, Mr. Chairman, is - I suppose what I am suggesting to the minister is that if he wants to be able to give out tickets than perhaps he should appoint the RNC inspectors under the act. He can do that without an amendment to the act. He could say that by regulation, RNC officers are considered to be - for the purposes of clause 7.(3)(b) of the act - inspectors for the purpose of laying information. I think that would be good, but the reason I am asking this question is because it is important when we get to the other point that if individuals want the act enforced then the minister's provision in clause 13, which says that if it is enforced you are going to lose your liquor licence, is a problem. Now, if you are only going to enforce it by having inspectors do it when they get around to it or if somebody complains to the minister by writing him a letter the next morning that this bar is not complying with the act, if that is the plan, I do not think people are going to be very happy with that. On the other hand, if you enforce it by giving out tickets and then somebody loses their licence for getting two tickets, than nobody is going to be very happy with that either.

I am saying to the minister, I am trying to be helpful here. I am not trying to criticize the government by saying you are doing an evil thing here. What I am saying is you are doing something that does not appear to be enforceable in a satisfactory way to the people who would like to see smoke-free environments in bars, for example, because they do not seem to have any very easy way to seek enforcement. I suppose if the minister wanted to appoint all the peace officers in the Province, inspectors for the purpose of giving tickets under the act, I would be happy with that, but I would not be happy if the result of giving out two tickets was going to cost some bar operator the loss of a licence in a situation where probably that is not what is required.

I am seeking that the minister listen to the objections that are being raised, which I think are very reasonable. I suppose at the end of the day if the minister does not want to listen to them and they want to pass this legislation, I am only wasting my time in bringing it to his attention. I am saying to the minister, people are not going to be very happy with this legislation if the minister is not going to enforce it in a way based on - people are going to be going downtown, saying: Well, this regulation means nothing because people do not really have to comply with it unless there are inspectors around. That is the problem I see, Mr. Chairman, and that is the problem I am pointing out to the minister. I have pointed it out many times, but I do not know if I am getting through.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the acting Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have been informed now - maybe the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, who is a lawyer, probably would be more familiar with the law than I would be, certainly. The Provincial Offences Act, I have been informed under section 11 there, one, that a ticket could be issued by a peace officer and so on, that provision is already there. So, I would refer that to the legal experts, not to me. I am not a legal expert, but he, being a lawyer, might be able to indicate if that is true there, and that provision is already there.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

MR. HARRIS: I know the provision that the minister is talking about. This particular legislation here provides for summary conviction offences all right and allows people to make tickets and I suppose it may, in fact, make people inspectors under the act. I guess if that is the case, Mr. Chairman, I will accept the argue being made that not only inspectors can lay tickets but police officers can as well. If that is the case, all the more reason why the provision in clause 13 should not go forward because if the minster intends - and I have been told that by the minister's assistant, that the minister intends that section 8 will solve the problem because the inspectors will not actually lay charges unless there is a flagrant violation of the act. Well, then that will not stop a police officer from laying a charge at the request of a member of the public who sees a violation, and you are going to have the Liquor Licensing Board being forced to lay a charge in circumstances where the inspectors, whom the minister has, would not do that, but would rather issue an order, instead, to try and get compliance.

What I am saying to the minister is, if that is the case - and I will accept for the moment that it is the case, that even though they are not inspectors under the act, the Provincial Offences Act allows a police officer to lay a charge - then I would suspect that you are going to run into problems on the other end because the Liquor Licensing Board would then be required to pull someone's licence on a first offence, as it is now, or on a second offence, as the minister plans in his proposed amendment for later on today. So, I would suggest that, one way or the other, he should listen to the objections here and give the Liquor Licensing Board the power to lift somebody's licence. I do not have a problem with that. That would be a last resort kind of situation if you could not get compliance any other way, but if you can, by using your inspectors in the way that you are proposing, and giving the Liquor Licensing Board the ultimate power but not a requirement, then you are going to have a better legislation.

That is what I would propose, that if the minister is correct, and I suspect he is, that, because it is a provincial offence and it does state, in clause 10 of the act, there is an offence made there with a summary conviction provision, then I suppose that would allow peace officers to lay a charge but it would also, if there were two tickets or two convictions, require the Liquor Licensing Board to lose the licence. So, it seems to me to be draconian at the other end and maybe we should have that discussion when we get to clause 13.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to return to my question with respect to section 11.(d), and hope, again, that the Minister of Finance and Acting Minister of Health and Community Services would not be getting testy with us and just try to answer the questions. Because, I can tell you, in listening to the discussion that was just here about the enforcement provisions under section 8 - and he did say publicly, when he talked about the release of this bill, that they would have all of this worked out and guaranteed to be able to give confidence to the people of the Province that they were not going to bring in any legislation that they could not enforce.

In the discussion I just heard, I did not get any great sense of confidence that this is guaranteed to be enforced, other than maybe it is going to be like the Mayor of the City of St. John's says about the water conservation measures, that he wants his neighbours to rat on each other. He says, you know, if you have water restrictions for doing your lawns, I want people to phone in and rat on their neighbours.

I do not think that is the way the government thinks this is going to be done, that the only way this is ever going to be enforced is if I am down in a bar after July 1, supposedly, and it is supposed to be smoke-free and somebody is smoking, that the onus is going to be on me. I am likely to complain because I am expecting it to be smoke-free, but legitimate questions were raised. Who do I complain to? I did not hear any answers that made a big lot of sense to me.

In any event, the minister, of course, in his usual style - and I hope that will not continue on - sort of says: Well, you fellows have the answers over there. Why didn't you propose an amendment?

That leads to the exposure of another problem. We received this just a few days ago. This is our opportunity to ask some questions for the first time, because there has been no consultation, and he wants the people to have confidence. He says: Oh, no, ask whatever question you want. Well, if you asked the questions and we got a clear, unequivocal answer then that would instill some confidence in us and the people of the Province. We did not get any clear, unequivocal answers, that I just heard, to the issues raised by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. There still seems to be some confusion.

Let me ask again about the issue I was raising in section 11.(d). Let me use Splash 2005, the Salmon Festival in Grand Falls, as the example, because what I believe I heard him say, and the minister can clarify it because I must have been wrong, was that in the Salmon Festival, which is completely and totally outdoors - there aren't any canopies over anything; it is outdoors. The only thing that has a little canopy over it is the stage, so that the musicians do not get electrocuted in case it rains. By the way, there have been concerts out there where it poured rain, the field was like a mud bowl, and the concert went on. The bands themselves needed protection from their equipment so they did not get electrocuted. Everybody else was out there with their ponchos on, out in the pouring rain. They have good weather most times, but there have been a couple of mud baths. The crowds diminish, but they are out there. The rules always were that you could smoke anywhere at the Salmon Festival because it is all completely outdoors. What I heard the minister say was that now, because there is a liquor licence in the beer tent, and there is no liquor licence in the rest of it, that there are going to be some rules around whether or not you are allowed to smoke in where the liquor licence is. He confused me more than answering the question. He suggested -

MR. SULLIVAN: I didn't say that.

MR. GRIMES: I am just saying that I would like to be corrected. I would like for it to be clear, because I was asked to ask this question by the organizers of the Salmon Festival, who have been led to believe they have to get some kind of permit now to allow smoking outdoors. I am asking a question on behalf of this group - the same thing for the Klondyke Festival: Do you have to get a permit to allow smoking in where the liquor licence is, in the beer tent? Obviously, there aren't any rules about smoking outdoors. That is not in this act. The rest of the field, where the minors and everybody else are allowed, where the major concert is and the major crowd is, has always been considered an outdoor space. There is nothing in this that says you cannot smoke there, that I understand, but the minister made some reference that at those events there is a part of it that is put aside for people of drinking age. They have a beer tent separated off. There are temporary fences put up, in the Klondyke Festival where I have been. There is a temporary fence put up, for example, down here at the Regatta. My understanding - and maybe he might be more familiar with the Regatta - I am assuming you are still allowed to walk anywhere around the lake on Regatta Day and smoke. I am assuming that. He made some reference, though, that up in the beer tent at the Regatta, because they have one there too, because there is a liquor licence, you might have to get some kind of special permit to allow smoking in the beer tent because there is a liquor licence in there.

I would just like for him to clear up any confusion around that. I may have misheard it, but we are looking for clarification.

CHAIR: The hon. the Acting Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will say it again. The purpose of having the possibility to give an exemption, or an exception to it, is so that in areas where liquor is served under a special events licence you would be able to permit smoking; because under the act as it is put forth, the legislation that is put forth now, you could not smoke where you have a liquor licence, but, where there is a liquor licence, the answer is yes. I have said that before. If you go back in Hansard, you will see that is exactly what I said.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, again, I know exactly what he said, but why complicate it?

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't think it is complicated. Yes.

MR. GRIMES: You have just complicated it again. You said, because there is a liquor licence at the Salmon Festival, now this year you have to get permission to allow smoking. They never had to get permission last year to allow smoking in the beer tent. You just answered that if you have a special events liquor licence, which is what you have to get for the Salmon Festival, you have to come to us under this regulation and get permission to allow smoking. Now, why complicate it? It is an outdoor event. If that is the case, just let them know. You will have to make them get permission to smoke outdoors, just because they have a beer tent. Now, that seems to be a little bit picky and so on to me, but I guess if that is what people have to go through, and if you think that is what makes sense, so be it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Acting Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chair, he must be mistaken. Normally where there are liquor licences served, regardless of what they are, if you have a liquor licence, you would not be allowed to have smoking, but this allows to have smoking with a special events licence. That is what that does. Isn't that clear? Is there anybody who does not understand that?

The Salmon Festival needs a special events licence to be able to sell beer. They are going to be allowed to have smoking there, but if it was not a special events licence you could not have it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, but if you did not have a special events licence at an event you would not be able to have smoking.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: I am sure somebody understands it, Mr. Chairman.

So, what he is saying now is that if there was no beer tent at the Salmon Festival you could smoke away. That is what he just said. He said if you do not have a special events licence to sell liquor, then you do not have to get permission to smoke because it is outdoors. There is nothing in this that says you cannot smoke outdoors. Never mind, they will figure it out from what you said I am sure, and they will get the answers.

Let me ask the other question, Mr. Chairman, because I am not here to belabour it. Now we are talking about indoor spaces, because the rest of 11.(d) says you can get permission to, "exempting events..." - which we just talked about - "...areas, buildings or parts of buildings from the application of this Act." Let me ask about the Legion in my hometown of Grand Falls-Windsor - which hosts all kinds of special events, weddings and all sorts of special occasions when it is leased out, other than just being open as the regular Legion, and lots of facilities have that. What I was asking previous is: Can you give us some examples of what the committee heard and what is in the minister's mind, that the Legion, as an example, under section 11.(d), could make application to the government - because the government can make regulations under this section - to allow that enclosed space - because they have a patio, by the way, that they are not allowed to smoke on anymore. That is an issue that we raised before. But, it suggests that the Legion might be able to apply to allow its smoke-free Legion to become a smoking Legion if it gets permission as part of a special event. What kind of exemptions and what kind of events are anticipated that could happen inside the Legion, just to use an example, where smoking would be permitted by the government under this regulation?

CHAIR: The hon. the Acting Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand that Legions do have liquor licences. That is my understanding. I am not sure of any that do not. My understanding is they do have a liquor licence and they have to follow the regular laws of a liquor licence that any other establishment would have.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 8 to 12 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

MR. HARRIS: Clauses 8 to 12. I have an amendment for clause 13. So, no, I will not speak on this.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 8 to 12 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 8 to 12 are carried.

On motion, clauses 8 through 12 carried.

CLERK: Clause 13.

CHAIR: Clause 13. Shall clause 13 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have an amendment to clause 13, to delete clause 13 and substitute the following as clause 13, which would say: Section 47 of the Liquor Control Act is amended by deleting all the words after the words "Criminal Code" and substituting the following: ‘or the Smoke-free Environment

Act, 2005, the board may cancel or suspend the licence of that liscencee.'

If Your Honour is able to, or your peer is able to indicate whether that amendment is in order, I will explain it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair has had an opportunity to review the amendment as put forward by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and the Chair deems that that amendment is in order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, section 47 of the act right now provides a certain discretion in the Liquor Licensing Board to either cancel or suspend the licence of a liquor licensee - this is the Liquor Control Act - where there has been a violation or conviction of an offence under certain sections of the Criminal Code, and these have to do with, as I mentioned yesterday, performance of certain theatrical acts or indecent acts. It seems to me that this is a much more appropriate method of dealing with the possibility of suspension of a liquor licence than the existing section 13, which says, "The board shall cancel a licence where the licensee... is guilty of an offence under the Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005."

What the existing provision means, Mr. Chairman, is that if a person is guilty of any violation of the Smoke-Free Environment Act the Liquor Licensing Board has no choice but to pull their licence. There are only two other circumstances under the current Liquor Control Act where the board is required, without any discretion, to pull a liquor licence. One is if there is a violation of the Lotteries Act. If someone "operates an electronic or mechanical amusement device in contravention of the Lotteries Act." In other words, if you are running an illegal gambling operation in your bar you lose your liquor licence. A very significant loss of a licence required - the board has no discretion. The board must take away your licence if you are convicted of running an illegal gambling operation as a licensee. The second provision, which requires - without any discretion, no discretion in the board now - is a conviction of an offence under the Tobacco Tax Act, which means selling contraband tobacco.

One has to do with running an illegal gambling joint, so they call it, the second one was selling smuggled tobacco. The scheme of the act, of the Liquor Control Act, says that if those two acts are violated you are guaranteed to lose your liquor licence. The board has no discretion. Now the board has all kinds of other discretions; if you are an inappropriate person, if you persistently violate the Liquor Control Act, they can pull your licence. They may pull your licence. Under the act that we have right now - which I am proposing to amend by removing this. The third requirement for the Liquor Licensing Board is that they must take away the licence if there is any violation of the Smoke-Free Environment Act. In other words, if an inspector goes into a bar tonight or after this act is enforced, July 10, and sees somebody smoking and the establishment allowing it or encouraging it or not enforcing it, and they are found guilty of violating the act, the Smoke-Free Environment Act, the Liquor Licensing Board has no discretion; first offence, no discretion. Now there is a proposal by the minister, I understand, to make it for a second offence, but either one to me is not proper.

What I am proposing is to put it in another section of the act; not section 33, which deals with gambling or selling contraband tobacco. I am proposing to deal with it in the same section that says if you violate the Criminal Code in other ways, after an indecent act performed or that type of thing, that the board would then have the discretion. So, if the liquor inspectors or the Minister of Health wanted to say to the board: Look, these people have been violating the act half a dozen times, they seem to be prepared to flaunt it. We would like you to suspend their licence or pull their licence. This is an appropriate place to put it. Give the board the discretion, under section 47, to remove a licence or suspend a licence if there is a violation of this act. The same as they can if there is a violation of certain provisions of the Criminal Code.

That is my proposed amendment, Mr. Chairman. It takes away the arbitrary nature of a mandatory cancellation and, by doing so, it allows the act to be enforced because we now know, from the minister's remarks here, he expects that police officers can give tickets, not just health inspectors. So, police officers can give tickets. Peace officers can give tickets. I guess municipal police officers can give tickets. Anybody who can force provincial offences - there are a whole bunch of provincial offences enforcement officers that can give tickets. There is no control by the minister over who can lay charges. He has admitted that. Yet, if there is any single offence, they are guaranteed to have to lose their liquor licence. I think that is a very significant penalty, one which will prevent the enforcement of the Act, and I would ask the minister to take this into consideration and allow this amendment to go through, either this amendment or the other proposed amendment that he has been given a copy of.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Acting Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The member knows full well that we are proposing an amendment, of which I provided a copy to him yesterday or the day before, that we are prepared to amend that, not on a first offence. He is aware of that, so he should not tie it into that, because we have expressed that interest already.

The one he is proposing in the first one, section 47, the Liquor Control Act, that really referenced indecency, et cetera. The one he is looking at proposing now, I can get to that when he so moves it. It is dealing with more discretionary items areas; if you violate a fire commissioner's order and there are numerous - I will leave that for when that comes forward. I will not belabour the point. We do not support this one here. We do not think it is pertinent. It is dealing with indecency sections and is not one that I consider to be relevant to this particular Act we are proposing now; how he is trying to tie it in.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The amendment as put forward by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi reads, that clause 13 be deleted and the following substituted: Section 47 of the Liquor Control Act is amended by deleting all the words after the words "Criminal Code" and substituting the following: ‘or the Smoke-free Environment Act, 2005, the board may cancel or suspend the licence of that licensee.'

Shall the amendment carry, as put forward by the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The Chair deems the amendment, as put forward by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, defeated.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I propose an amendment to clause 13 as follows, that clause 13 be deleted and the following substituted as clause 13, to read as follows: Section 48(1) of the Liquor Control Act is amended by adding sub-clause (c.1) as follows, and it would read, ‘the licensee fails to operate the licensed premises in accordance with the Smoke-free Environment Act, 2005.' If the Chair deems the amendment is in order, I will explain that one.

CHAIR: The Chair is in possession of the amendment as put forward by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and the Chair deems that amendment to be in order.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Section 48 of the Liquor Control Act allows the Liquor Licensing Board to cancel a licence of a licensee for a series of reasons that are set forth in subclauses 48.(1)(a) to (g). They include things like persistent failure to comply with the Liquor Control Act, or consistent failure to carry out the orders of the board or the Fire Commissioner, or failing to keep the licenced premise in a clean and sanitary condition. Some of these are public health measures, some of these are keeping the peace; failure to operate the licenced premise in an orderly manner, this type of thing. It allows the discretion of the board so that if somebody is conducting their bar in a manner that not in conformity with law, good order, cleanliness, or public health, that the board may - and it says may in a very important way. The word may means that there is a discretion. The board does not have to but the board can.

The reason I am suggesting this, Mr. Chairman, is because I want this Act to be enforced but I have a significant feeling, Mr. Chairman, that the Act is not going to be enforced very well if the consequence of enforcing it is going to be the loss of a liquor licence without any discretion in the board. What I am suggesting is that we add, as to one of these sections, an additional section to allow the board to cancel the licence in certain circumstances, and that is if the licencee fails to operate the licenced premise in accordance with the Smoke-Free Environment Act.

Presumably, that would require some application to the board, or some reference to the board, by the minister or by the inspector saying: Look, we have charged this guy four or five times. We have an attitude problem here. This person is not deserving of a licence, so we are asking that the Liquor Licensing Board cancel this person's licence. There is nothing we can do about it. We charged him four or five times. He pays the fines, but he treats it as if this is something that he does not have to comply with, so we think you should cancel the licence. It would be discretionary, not automatic.

I am proposing that as an alternative way to deal with the problem that we may have if someone persistently violates the Act.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The amendment, as put forward by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, proposes that Bill 20, clause 13, be deleted and the following substituted, ‘Section 48(1) of the Liquor Control Act is amended by adding subclause (c)(1) as follows: the licencee fails to operate the licenced premises in accordance with the Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005.'

Shall the amendment to clause 13 of Bill 20, as put forward by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The Chair deems the amendment, as put forward by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, to be defeated.

Shall clause 13 carry?

The hon. the Acting Minister of Health and community Services.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chair, I propose an amendment. It has been passed to the Table and circulated. I am proposing that clause 13 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted, section 13 of the Liquor Control Act is amended by adding immediately after subsection 6, the following: The board shall cancel a licence where the licencee has been convicted of a second or subsequent offence under the Smoke-free Environment Act , 2005.

Mr. Chair, if that is in order, I will address it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Table has had an opportunity to review the amendment as put forward by the Acting Minister of Health and Community Services and deems the amendment to be in order.

The hon. the Acting Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, there could be a subsequent if a licence was reinstated and then that could be a later offence. It does not mean you cannot apply and go through a reinstatement process. That is what subsequent would cover.

I just want to add quickly. Even though there is provision for an inspector in clause 8 of that bill, to exercise discretion as to whether the person is going to be charged, that discretion is there. At least, now, if an inspector decides to exercise that, without any tolerance, there is still a second chance that establishment is not going to have to pay a significant fine and lose their licence. I do agree that at least now they have a second chance, plus the inspector has certain discretion based on the co-operation and the circumstances that they professionally deal with. and how they would handle that situation.

We propose that. It is an area that gives somebody a second chance, which is only appropriate.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The amendment as put forward by the Acting Minister of Health and Community to Bill 20, clause 13, would read, section 33 of the Liquor Control Act is amended by adding immediately subsection 6 the following: (6.1) The board shall cancel a licence where the licensee has been convicted of a second or subsequent offence under the Smoke-free Environment Act, 2005.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to speak to the amendment put forward by the minister. I think the government has made a move in the right direction regarding this penalty section, by at least the wording that they use, trying to suggest a second or subsequent offence. Rather than someone getting one conviction under this new law, and all of a sudden you lose your liquor licence mandatorily from the board, it is leaning in the right direction. I do not think the wording is appropriate in the sense that it does not go far enough. For example, we have had the situation where if two people in the same bar, on the same night, get charged because that liquor inspector walks in, or whomever the inspector is walks in, it is not a case of two separate events. All it says is, a second or subsequent offence. So, if they come into the club that night and I get caught for smoking, and Joe Blow ten tables over gets caught, two tickets, same night, same bar, there are two convictions; there is a second conviction. Off you go to court. On the same day, you end up with two convictions because two people happened to be smoking in your club that night at the same time. It is not like I think it was intended to be, that if it happened on January 1 that was considered the first time. Then, if it happened again on August 10, that was your second conviction.

What I am suggesting to the minister is, you have not looked after the situation that, if the two tickets get issued on the same night, you have two convictions registered. Right away, again, it is the first time that a club owner, for example, might have run afoul of this law. He might have run afoul of this law for the first time that one particular night, but because there happened to be two people smoking that same night he still ends up with the drastic - I would submit draconian - measure of having lost his liquor licence.

You are headed in the right direction to give somebody a second shot here, but we are dealing with a new law here. I mean, it is one thing to insist that we want it to be upheld, and I think everybody in here is in favour of that piece - nobody is against the principle of what you are trying to accomplish here - but there has to be a fairness quotient. I was a Crown prosecutor myself for eighteen years, all kinds of offences, federal, Criminal Code offences, aeronautics, whatever, you name it, but still, usually, in any kind of penal institution, there is something that gives somebody a first chance. Right here, again, the "shall" piece is the problem, not whether it is a second or a subsequent. The problem is the "shall".

Usually, in types of offences of this nature, some people would even classify it as quasi-criminal as opposed to being criminal in nature; a quasi-criminal type of offence that you would use "may", so at least a board can deal with any particular circumstance. They can judge the facts on it. If John Doe, who runs the club in Ferryland, for example, willy-nilly, lets everybody smoke every night, whenever they want, he deserves to lose his licence. The board would know that, and the board would be told that from a fact sheet that would come to them from the investigator or from the court. They would know that.

That is not the situation here. Everybody here gets treated alike in the sense that if you get caught, no matter how innocent you might be - if you had your back turned and somebody lit up a smoke in your bathroom - you are out of your licence. If two people are in the bathroom having a puff, you are out your liquor licence. All we are saying here is, why be draconian? Why not have the punishment fit the crime? Give somebody - the board in this case. We trust them enough to appoint them to the board. We trust them enough to decide who is reputable enough to have a licence. Why wouldn't we entrust to that same board the discretionary authority to say: Yes, we have reviewed your circumstances, Mr. or Mrs., and we think you ought to lose your licence, thank you very much, because you are a constant violator of this. You might have just gotten caught, but you had fifty people in your club smoking last night. Yes, you are out your licence.

What you have done here is remove that discretionary piece. We have discretion built into our courts in the toughest of crimes that have existed for centuries. Why are we, all of a sudden, being so draconian with a bill that we all want the right results from, but that we are not even allowing it to be tested in the public yet? If we find out that the board is abusing its authority on the "may" piece, if you give that discretion to the board and you find out that the board never withdraws any licence for any circumstances, then I think it is incumbent upon the legislators to say the board did not do what they should have done. There are fifty convictions registered against Joe Doe and the board never took his licence. We have to change that. We have to turn that "may" into a "shall" because he is showing his disrespect from what was intended here.

The intention is great, I would submit, but we haven't made the punishment fit the crime. All we are suggesting here is: Why not be reasonable? Why, foolhardily, push ahead and say you must do something at all cost regardless of the circumstances. We are just saying, be reasonable and allow that board to make that decision. That is why I would propose a friendly amendment that your thing is fine, it is perfect, except "shall" should be "may".

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Acting Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When a patron in a building is smoking, that patron will be charged. If an inspector came in and there were five people smoking, or everybody was smoking, all fifty people, I do not feel an inspector is going to issue fifty offences for that owner. He does not have to charge them at all.

The point I am making is that anybody, in the normal course, who permitted smoking at 7:00 o'clock in the evening in your club, and you came in and there were five people smoking, the owner of that establishment could be charged. If the inspector decided, he may give an opportunity and say deal with it immediately and would charge the owner not fifty times, or thirty, or fifteen or ten. It is very similar if you allow minors in your vehicle to have no seat belts on, for example, and there were three kids and none of them had seat belts, would you be charged three offences and have to pay it three times? You probably could be charged by allowing minors not to have seat belts there, but in a club if there is an inspector going in and there are five smoking, that is an offence to allow smoking in your club. That should be one offence, not four offences or three offences or ten, if they are smoking. That is stretching things to the utter limit in this instance there. That is a violation of the act by permitting smoking in your establishment. Whether it is one or whether it is fifty or whether it is two hundred, that is a violation. In my opinion, there should be one violation. If you went to court and said -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it is my opinion, if you went to court and told a judge that, and presented it to a judge, and the judge would decide on that, that I was charged three times at the one occasion - there were three smoking - do you think a judge would say that is three offences now?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: If someone violates it consecutively, after one hour, and comes back the next night, or three hours later, and you were caught again, then, to me, that would be a second charge, and that discretion is there now with the inspector. The inspector does not even have to issue a ticket. He does not have to do it now. I think that is stretching things to the utter limits and I do not feel it is given fair.... We should have it because, if not, if that is the case, it is only going to make a joke of it, and an opportunity is there right now, Mr. Chair.

In this instance I am not going to draw a conclusion as to what a judge should or should not determine as a subsequent offence. To me, when both were done at the same time in the same establishment, if someone treats that as two different offences, to me that is not being a reasonable approach to take on that at all, but subsequent offences, yes.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think we may be getting a bit unduly technical here. Although I think the Opposition House Leader was being quite reasonable in his approach, I believe actually the minister is probably right about how a second offence would be interpreted by the court, that it would be an offence that occurs after the first conviction, but that is a technical point.

The real problem here is, I think, Mr. Chairman - and the Opposition House Leader was quite reasonable in his argument - what we are doing here, the minister seems to be saying that we will put the discretion in the inspector and not in the board. I think that is wrong. I think the discretion should be in the board and not in the inspector, because we have less control over the inspectors, Mr. Chairman. While the minister might have control over his own inspectors, he just made an argument half an hour ago that police officers can lay charges too. So, if police officers can lay charges one day, and the inspector in his discretion says, no, no, we are not going to go the whole nine yards with this guy because he is making a reasonable attempt, but then six months later - I think we have to understand that people who do not want smoke blown in their face can be pretty persistent people. The non-smoking rights groups are fairly adamant people. I can tell you right now, there are going to be people going down to test this legislation on July 2. They will be going down to test this legislation and if there is somebody smoking in a bar, they are going to have the police there. The police are going to be there and they are going to be demanding that charges be laid, and the police are not going to have the same discretion as the inspectors. The police say: Well, the Act says you are allowed to smoke and I am going to lay a charge. What is going to happen, Mr. Chair, is somebody is going to lose their liquor licence and the minister is going to be coming back here next year and saying: Well, we have to change this Act.

The friendly amendment that should be available and the minister should listen to is: Instead of saying shall, say may suspend or cancel, give the option; may suspend or cancel. That way the board - as the minister quite rightly pointed out, we are asking the board to use their discretion to determine whether someone is an appropriate person to have a licence in the first place. Now what more broad discretion can you have than that? We trust the board to do that, we trust the board to administer the Liquor Control Act, we trust the board to do all sorts of discretionary things, and now we are saying: Oh, no, we are not going to trust the board to decide whether to cancel or suspend someone's licence for a violation of the Smoke-free Environment Act. We are going to say, the board must, if we have two convictions. Those two convictions may come from an inspector laying a charge or giving a ticket, or they may come from something that the inspector or minister really has no control over, which is some police officer, on the complaint of a non-smoking rights person who is going to insist on their rights that a charge be laid - and if someone happens to get caught twice, bang, they lose their licence, the licence is cancelled.

Now, the minister talks about reinstatement. There is no provision for reinstatement there, it is cancel, not suspend but cancel, and the person has to started off all over again to try and get a licence. What kind of disruption is that going to cause to an individual running a bar or an operation, trying to be in business, who happens to get caught out because they have not managed to fully conform to the Act?

I think, Mr. Chairman, we have a situation where this government, for some reason, does not want to listen to reason, to common sense, to a notion of proportionally, the punishment fitting the crime, to give the discretion to the people of the Liquor Licensing Board who have all kinds of discretion under the Liquor Control Act. For some reason the minister does not want to give them discretion under this, they want to force them to take away someone's licence in a situation where they happen to be convicted twice under this act. I think it is totally unreasonable, Mr. Chairman, and I am amazed - amazed! - that is government is not listening to the kind of reasoned arguments that are being made on this side of the House to try and improve the legislation so that it will work, so that the bar owners will embrace it, and so that the public will have confidence that it can be enforced and acted upon. I am amazed that we do not seem to get any response from the other side on that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I almost hesitate to talk, because I get the distinct feeling it is like trying to beat a dead horse, particularly with the minister who we are trying to deal with. The fact that I said that now, he will get even more angry and more pigheaded and more stubborn. He is not going to change anyway, so I might as well say what I have on my mind.

A very simple request was just made and put forward. The government, as I understand it, did listen a little bit yesterday and came forward to propose an amendment to say that, one offence, they felt, was a bit severe. Even the Minister of Justice would agree with that and I would suggest that he encourage them to consider that, that the first offence for someone smoking in a bar, that the penalty could be losing your liquor licence and therefore having to close your establishment, was a bit too severe. I am sure he encouraged the Acting Minister of Health and Community Services to at least give people a second chance. Even in the State of California where they have some of the toughest laws in the world, they have three strikes and you are out. It is actually called that, it is called the three-strike legislation, that you get like three chances for things a lot more serious than smoking in a public place. You get three chances. Here at least they gave a second chance.

What I have heard was this, a description of the fact that the two chances that you get under this law, as written, could both be used up in the same day, in the same evening, within a couple hours of each other. If an inspector comes in at seven o'clock and somebody is smoking, unless he is going to do nothing about it, unless he is going to turn a blind eye, what is the point in going in there? If he sees a violation he has to do something about it, whether it is one person or fifty people. He should do something about it if he is going to enforce it. If he comes back at one o'clock in the morning in the same establishment and he sees either one person or fifty people smoking again, he should do something about it, shouldn't he? Now, I should not have said one o'clock in the morning, because guess what the Acting Minister of Health and Community Services said. He said, that is a different day boy. How stunned are you, that is the next day, because that is the way he operates you see. He would want to get up now and say: How stunned is he, he was trying to make an argument talking about two different days. I am telling you one thing, for the people I know who go down to bars downtown, when they go down at eleven or twelve o'clock, because that is when they go down, and they stay down there until three or four, because that is when they come home, they do not think it is two different days, I can guarantee you that. In the real world it is not two different days, it is the same day.

Anyway, let me make the argument again, so he does not get up and get petty about that, which is his nature and wont to be. There is an incident at seven o'clock., which somebody has brought to their attention, that it happened, and there is another one at ten-thirty the same evening, three-and-a-half hours later, the same calendar day. One of the members said: Well, maybe there are fifty people smoking as opposed to one or two. He said: Oh, well here is what I would do if I was the inspector. Here is my opinion - great comfort in that - that I would not treat that as two offences. As a matter of fact, if there was fifty people smoking, he said, I would not give out fifty citations, I would just go right straight to the owner. Well right now, he is saying that he would violate -

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chair, a point of order.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Acting Minister of Health and Community Services, on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chair, I just want to make a point. I did not indicate if fifty people were smoking you should not charge each of the fifty people. I indicated you should not charge the owner fifty times. I want to make that clear.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is certainly no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you.

I am glad to have that clarification, because I think everybody in the world understands you can only charge the owner once, on one occasion, because section 10 -

MR. SULLIVAN: That is not what your comment said.

MR. GRIMES: We are not trying to be argumentative, I am saying to the minister, we are trying to make a sensible, serious point. He wants to prove, as he always does: Oh, no I am right, I am dead right. Nobody over there could have said anything that was right. I am right and I am defending this piece of legislation and every word has to be perfect. Well, I can guarantee you section 10 - I know we are on clause 13, but if he is going to do what he said when he gave the explanation and the rebuttal, as to why he would not consider a friendly amendment to make a "shall" in a "may" - that is what the request was. How about a friendly amendment. We will accept your amendment about the second chance. A good idea, a move in right direction. Now put the discretion back in the board by making the "shall" into a "may" and we vote for this amendment and we conclude; a friendly amendment. Guess what he said, sitting in his seat when the argument was being made by the Opposition House Leader and the Leader of the New Democratic Party - two lawyers by the way - talking about a friendly amendment? Guess what his response was from his seat? They are getting silly now. The exact quote, I had to write it down: Getting too silly now, he said; getting too silly now. You see, someone is making a logical argument about an amendment the he has proposed and he does not want to change.

I mean everybody remembers the article in The Express. He would not give his sister or sister-in-law or somebody fifty when she got forty-nine. He said: No, you did not earn it. You never got fifty, you got forty-nine, I am not changing that. Go on, repeat the course. I gave you forty-nine, I am not changing forty-nine. I am not going to go back and look at that exam paper and see if I might give you a little bit of the benefit of the doubt so you could have passed the course. I mean, that is what we are dealing with here. I am only saying this now because he will not accept a friendly amendment.

MR. PARSONS: Any other minister would have done it.

MR. GRIMES: There is no point in me trying to get up and be friendly about it. I think anybody else in this Legislature would have done it. In this case, I believe even the Premier would have done it, and it takes something for me to say that because I do not think he would ever change his mind on anything. On this one, I believe even the Premier of this Province would have accepted a friendly amendment and have this Legislature vote for this at this point in time, unanimously. We will see now. Maybe I will start being nice for a few minutes.

The whole notion is this. If you go back to section 10 it says that, a person who contravenes this Act, there is a fine for the person, and we are talking about one person or fifty people. He said: No, you are not going to go around and fine all fifty of them. You are not going to give fifty citations to the owner. You cannot give fifty citations to the owner. If you walked into the club as the inspector and there was an infraction of the law, the owner was supposed to make sure that there was no smoking and there was smoking. He is only guilty once. It does not matter if there are two people smoking or 150 people smoking, he was supposed to stop them all and he did not stop them, so he is guilty of one infraction, that he did not make sure they did not smoke. Each person, by the way, is supposed to be dealt with. Each individual has to be dealt with or else you are not going to enforce the law. He sort of suggested that an inspector would go in and if he saw a big crowd smoking, well he wasn't going to go around and try to give a ticket to everybody. Maybe he wasn't going to ticket any of them.

Here is the logic as I see it. If he does not ticket at least one smoker who is smoking against the law, on what basis is he going to go over and lay a charge with the owner? I mean, don't you have to issue a ticket to some person who is breaking the law before you can go up to the owner and say: You let somebody break the law. How is that going to stand up in court? How would it stand up in court to go and lay a charge against the owner to permit smoking and the judge says: Okay, where is the person that was smoking? You must have ticketed them. Oh, no, I didn't bother to ticket them, I went straight to the owner. Now, I am no lawyer but I think I could make a pretty good case about that one. There is no evidence that anybody smoked, so why are you charging the owner when you do not have a ticket or a citation here from any one individual who smoked in that club?

I just ask again - the solution to it all is very simple and straight forward. Lets have a friendly amendment, make the shall into a may so somebody can have a bit of discretion and treat this infraction in law the same as many other, much more serious infractions are treated, that you get a chance to plead exceptional or extenuating circumstances, you get a chance to go in and plead your case as to what happened, whether you knew or not, because everybody does want the law to work and they want it to be enforceable.

I do not know if I can say it any more than that, other than to belabour the point, so I will stop there. Maybe others might want to speak to it more completely. The amendment is headed in the right direction, the government and the minister are headed in the right direction, and with one more tiny little baby step, we believe he would be there and the legislation would be much better and improved because of it. I can only make that plea one more time, a friendly amendment to add may, or replace shall with may, and we do not have to discuss this any further.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to say a few more words in support of the notion of giving the Liquor Licensing Board some discretion here. You know, this is not being proposed to try and weaken the legislation. This is being proposed in order to, in fact, strengthen the legislation, to make it more likely that it would be enforced.

When the Member for LaPoile, the Opposition House Leader, speaks about this, he speaks from twenty-five years practicing law. In fact, between us, the Member for LaPoile and I have fifty years of experience practicing law. When you go to looking at how laws are enforced - I will give you an example. Lets talk about the laws with respect to impaired driving. Twenty-five years ago, the offence of impaired driving was considered a violation of the Criminal Code. You might get fined a couple of hundred dollars, $150 maybe. You might lose your licence for a month or three months. It was at the discretion of the judge. Some judges were pretty heavy-handed, some judges were a little bit more lenient. Public opinion did not like that. Public opinion said: No, we want greater enforcement, impaired driving is a bad thing. The fines went up, the minimum fine went up. There was a minimum fine imposed and then there was a minimum licence suspension imposed, six months. You had a six-month driving suspension, automatic.

Then the judges were given the discretion to allow someone to drive to and from work. The judges had that discretion. Public opinion did not like that. Too many people were getting discretion to go back and forth to work and they were supposed to be suffering a suspension from their driver's licence, so that discretion was removed. Automatic six-month suspension for impaired driving, and then the public opinion once again - the House of Commons changed its Criminal Code, and then not only on a first offence could you possibly go to jail. It was possible to go to jail for a first offence, not likely but a possibility. Then the House of Commons changed the Criminal Code again, and they said, for a first offence you had a maximum of six months in jail, but nobody went to jail for six months for a first offence for impaired driving. For a second offence, they said it was a minimum of two weeks in jail. Anybody who was convicted of a second offence of impaired driving, the judge had no choice, they had to go jail for two weeks. For a third offence, three months in jail, no discretion to the judge. This happened over time. There was discretion there for a while. The discretion was not working to the satisfaction of the legislature and public opinion, so the laws were changed.

What is being suggested here is - we have new legislation. It is new legislation, you are not allowed to smoke in bars, and we want to see it enforced. We do not want to see people saying: I am afraid to lay a charge because I do not want to go too far with this bar owner. Where it is not simply the inspectors who have the right to lay charges, as the minister indicated, police officers could do that and individuals - under the Provincial Offences Act, an individual can lay a private information. What this legislation is saying, regardless of how we get to the conviction, if there are two convictions, you have to lose your liquor licence. What is being suggested on this side of the House, in a friendly way by people with legal experience going back for many years, is that this is too arbitrary and too harsh and it will lead to a lack of proper enforcement of the act, or it will lead to arbitrary solutions.

The simple friendly amendment - you could just change ‘shall' to ‘may', but you could also change it to ‘suspend' or ‘cancel', or you could leave cancel there if you like - but to mitigate that penalty provision, because it is a punitive penalty provision, a little bit more, and say that the Liquor Licensing Board shall have the discretion. If it turns out the Liquor Licensing Board does not use it properly, come back and say: The Liquor Licensing Board is being too lenient here, they are letting people get away with things that they should not, and we want to toughen it up. That is what is being suggested over here, a very friendly amendment to suggest that there be a little bit of discretion left in the Liquor Licensing Board.

What the minister seems to want is that the discretion should be in the hands of the inspector, but we know that the inspector is not a single person. It is not a single person who is saying: Well, I have had experience with this bar owner and it is time for me to get tough and lay a charge; time for me to get tough and lay a second charge. Because there could be one inspector one day, it could be a peace officer the next day, it could be a person who is adamant that they are not going to see a cigarette in any bar, going around looking themselves. You could have private individuals going around from bar to bar looking for smokers and phoning the police, saying: There are people smoking in this bar, how come you are not enforcing it? I would not be surprised if you will get people doing that. What we are seeing is a piece of legislation that starts off being pretty well supported by the public, ends up having such drastic results of people losing their licences that it loses respect. You might see it backlash, going the other way, saying get rid of the legislation altogether.

I think what we have here is the friendliest of amendments, to say: Okay, we would like to see this enforced. Give out more tickets. Allow the police to give out tickets. Allow the non-smokers rights people to call in the cops if they want to and see to it that the law is enforced. If someone pays their fines, well, they pay their fines. If, on the other hand, somebody is flouting the law, then the Liquor Licensing Board can deal with it by suspending their licence or removing their licence. That seems, to me, to be a much more appropriate way to deal with this.

We are talking about discretion here and we are talking about a Liquor Licensing Board that, under the Liquor Control Act, has a vast amount of discretion. For some reason we are saying that smoking in a bar is going to be treated the same way as running an illegal gambling operation, or running a smuggling operation, or selling tobacco illegally. There are reasons why the law looks upon these activities as contrary to the notion of qualifying for a liquor licence, breaking this particular public health statute, as opposed to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, as opposed to the health regulations for restaurants, as opposed to any kind of other acts, including breaches of the Criminal Code for performing indecent acts. All kinds of discretion in those cases but in the case, for some reason, of the Smoke-free Environment Act, no discretion in the board. We want the board, without any discretion, to get rid of that licence without any right to do something different.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this is a very positive suggestion to the government; a very positive suggestion. A way to mitigate the potential arbitrary and draconian nature of this and a measure that would see better enforcement, more likely enforcement and more even-handed and fair enforcement. It is not fair, Mr. Chairman, because we are going to have two kinds of people enforcing this act. We are going to have inspectors - there are only two or three of them, or maybe there are four or five, I do not know. It is probably the same people who inspect restaurants are going to inspect bars. There are only a few of them and they may or may not control it but then you are going to have other people out there. I will not call them vigilantes, but it may be public citizens who want to ensure that they can go anywhere and not be confronted by smoke.

There are going to be people who are going to do it, Mr. Chairman, I can assure you of that. There are going to be the parents, the mothers of barkeepers. The woman who was on the radio the other day who was delighted with the legislation because now her daughter does not have to work in a smoke-filled environment, and she has asthma. Well, if she is downtown saying: I can go downtown now, and she sees that the law is being flouted, what is she going to do? Is she going to write a letter to the minister or she is going to phone the police? I suspect she is likely to phone the police. If the police come are they going to law a charge? They might have to, an obvious violation of the act. They are going to lay a charge. Nothing to do with the inspectors, nothing to do with what the minister's plans are, nothing to do with the discretion that he expects the inspector to exercise. If two of them happens, somebody loses their licence. Is that what they want? Is that how we want this new act to be brought into place, because somebody happens to run afoul of it twice? I did not think that was the case. I did not think that was the plan. I thought that when we pointed out the difficulty and the problem there was, that reason would prevail. Maybe it has, Mr. Chairman, I do not know. Maybe it has. Maybe at this late hour, 6:38 p.m., with the Administrator waiting outside to give Royal Assent to the legislation, all of this thirty-some pieces of legislation we have passed in the last little while. Maybe reason has prevailed, I do not know.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that his speaking time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I hope it has prevailed, but we will see very shortly.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, having not heard that any friendly amendment may be in order, I present this particular further amendment to clause 13 to the Chair. I will read it into the record and then pass it to you, as the Chair, to make sure again that it is ruled in order, if that is the case.

To further amend clause 13 so that section (6.1) would read, "The board may cancel a licence...", and the rest of the words that are there, rather than, "The board shall cancel a licence..." on the second or subsequent offence.

I present that to the Table for consideration so I can speak to that, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair has had an opportunity to confer with the Table, and the amendment as put forward by the Leader of the Opposition is certainly in order, but the Chair has also been given direction that maybe the right procedure here is to vote on the amendment as put forward by the Acting Minister of Health and Community Services and then allow discussion on the amendment to the amendment as put forward by the Minister of Health and Community Services.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition, maybe we should vote on the amendment as put forward by the Minister of Health and Community Services first.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, we could save ourselves all that procedure if the friendly amendment was accepted. Let me just make these particular points again, Mr. Chairman. I believe, with respect to the arguments that have been made, and the latter, the last and latest argument being made by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I did not sense any -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) make a suggestion.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Acting Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are prepared to look at an amendment, if you want to put in "may", we would revert to the initial first offence then, because that way then you have "may" and I think that would be reasonable grounds, if we could do that. Then you still have the option, but on one offence you may, and it will depend on the gravity of the matter to determine if you lose it or not. If that is agreeable with colleagues?

We would do an amendment to the amendment that is on the floor now, which could be debated as an amendment to the amendment. The amendment would now read that "shall" be changed to "may", where the licensee has been convicted of an offence. I guess it will revert to what is currently in the bill now, and that would cover it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Where he is guilty of an offence under the Smoke-free Environment Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The board may cancel a licence where the licensee has been convicted -

AN HON. MEMBER: Of an offence.

MR. SULLIVAN: - of an offence under the Smoke-free Environment Act, 2005.

That should do it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

It is the Chair's understanding that the Acting Minister of Health and Community Services is retracting the first amendment as put forward, and the new amendment will read: Section 33 of the Liquor Control Act is amended by adding immediately after subsection 6 the following: (6.1) The board may cancel a licence where the licensee has been convicted of an offence under the Smoke-free Environment Act, 2005.

That is done by agreement?

Would the amendment as put forward and read into the record by the Acting Minister of Health and Community Services carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: I just want to go on the record as saying this: I would like to withdraw any nasty comments I have made about (inaudible)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: All of them, the whole (inaudible)?

MR. REID: Be a man now and take it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the acting Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SULLIVAN: I accept all the withdrawals right back to 1992, but there is one point I hope he doesn't mind me correcting him on. It wasn't whether you passed or failed a course, it was a snap exam to see if my students did what I told them the day before.

MR. REID: That is not true, Loyola. You know your sister-in-law beat you in trivial pursuit, you stayed up all night (inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to say that I am pleased to see that our efforts have not been in vain in speaking on this legislation. I think it was very clear we were doing this for the purpose of improving the Act, and I am glad that members opposite have consented to try out the discretion first. If discretion doesn't work, then obviously there will be arguments able to be made to have less discretion in the Liquor Licensing Board. I hope that this legislation, improved as we have now agreed to do it, will be successful in providing a smoke-free environment in bars, restaurants and other places to which it applies.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

Shall the amendment, as put forward by the Minister of Health and Community Services, carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The amendment is carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report clause 13 carried, as amended?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 13 carried, as amended.

On motion, clause 13, as amended, carried.

CLERK: Clause 14

CHAIR: Shall clause 14 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 14 is carried.

On motion, clause 14 carried.

CLERK: Clause 15

CHAIR: Shall clause 15 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, I have provided an amendment that I am proposing to clause 15, which is the proclamation and commencement of this particular one. I will just wait to see if it is ruled in order.

CHAIR: The Chair is in possession of the amendment as put forward by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, and the Chair deems the amendment to be in order.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I won't belabour this point, other than to say that clause 15 basically indicates, as written, that this Act comes into force on a date to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. In English it means that the Cabinet will decide when this takes effect. The minister has already stated publicly, outside the Legislature, in his press conference, that the effective date will be July 1, which is five weeks hence. The only group that I am aware of that has had any direct contact, although I have had some contact as well with representatives with Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador, who are saying they support the initiatives, they are glad to see this step being made, but they are not sure that five weeks is an adequate notice period to give the businesses involved the opportunity to make the necessary adjustments. I do not know, and I do not profess to know, what the right time is, but five weeks is a little bit quick to make this kind of a significant and major change, particularly if there are going to be designated smoking rooms in facilities to comply with regulations and those kinds of things.

The amendment that I would move, Mr. Chair, and I will not belabour it, is to suggest that by all means the Cabinet is the right group to decide when this act should commence, because we should not decide that here in the full Legislature. The suggestion is that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council decide when it comes into force.

What I have asked to be considered is: after consultation with the Beverage Industry Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. All we are asking is that there be a consultation. After the consultation, in fact, the Cabinet still might decide that the right date is July 1. All it is asking is that there be a consultation about the commencement date, and then government would at least let this group make whatever representation they want to make before the Cabinet decides whether July 1 is the final, firm date or not.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Leader of the Opposition has put forward an amendment, and the amendment reads: Amend clause 15 to add "after consultation with the Beverage Industry Association of Newfoundland and Labrador" at the end of the clause following the word "council".

Shall this amendment carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

Division

CHAIR: Call in the members.

Is the House ready for the vote?

All those in favour of the amendment as put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Grimes; Mr. Parsons; Mr. Butler; Mr. Langdon; Ms Thistle; Mr. Reid.; Mr. Andersen; Mr. Sweeney; Mr. Joyce.

CHAIR: All those against the amendment as put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Williams; Mr. Edward Byrne; Mr. Rideout; Ms Dunderdale; Mr. Taylor; Mr. Marshall; Mr. Sullivan; Mr. Shelley; Mr. O'Brien; Ms Burke; Mr. Tom Osborne; Mr. Jim Hodder; Mr. Wiseman; Mr. Denine; Mr. French; Mr. Harding; Mr. Young; Mr. Hunter; Mr. Jackman; Mr. Ridgley; Mr. Skinner; Mr. Oram, Mr. Harris.

Mr. Chair, nine ayes and twenty-three nays.

CHAIR: The amendment as put forward by the Leader of the Opposition is defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall clause 15 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 15 is carried.

On motion, clause 15 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, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Smoking In Public Places And The Workplace.

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 20, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Smoking In Public Places And The Workplace, carried with amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 20 is carried, with amendment.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move that the Committee rise, report some 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.

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 the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 35, Bill 39, Bill 38 and Bill 36 passed without amendment, and Bill 26 and Bill 20 passed with amendments, 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 him to report Bill 35, Bill 39, Bill 36 and Bill 38 passed without amendment, and Bill 26 and Bill 20 passed with amendment.

When shall these reports be received?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, by leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, by leave.

When shall these bills be read a third time?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, by leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, by leave.

On motion, report received and adopted, bills ordered read a third time presently, by leave. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

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

I move third reading of Bill 35.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act, be now read a third time.

It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 35 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 Buildings Accessibility Act. (Bill 35)

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 Buildings Accessibility Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 35)

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

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

I move third reading of Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, be now read a third time.

It is the pleasure of the House that Bill 39 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 Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 39)

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 Public Service Collective Bargaining Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 39)

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

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

I move third reading of Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 26 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 Automobile Insurance Act. (Bill 26)

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 Automobile Insurance Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 26)

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

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

I move third reading of Bill 38, An Act To Amend The Lobbyist Registration Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 38, An Act To Amend The Lobbyist Registration Act, be now read a third time.

It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 38 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 Lobbyist Registration Act. (Bill 38)

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 Lobbyist Registration Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 38)

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

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

I move third reading of An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles and All-Terrain Vehicles Act. (Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 36, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 36 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act. (Bill 36)

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 Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 36)

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

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

I move third reading of Bill 20, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Smoking In Public Places And The Workplace.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 20, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Smoking In Public Places And The Workplace, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 20 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 Revise The Law Respecting Smoking In Public Places And The Workplace. (Bill 20)

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

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: Are the whips ready for the vote?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ready.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Williams, Mr. Edward Byrne, Mr. Rideout, Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. O'Brien, Ms Burke, Mr. Tom Osborne, Mr. Jim Hodder, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Denine, Mr. French, Mr. Harding, Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Jackman, Ms Johnson, Mr. Ridgley, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Oram, Mr. Grimes, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Langdon, Ms Thistle, Mr. Reid, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Harris.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please stand.

The Chair notes that the motion has been passed unanimously.

The Clerk has informed me that we should have called the first and second reading of the amendments. With consent we can deem them to have been called.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Do we have consent of the House to deem they have been called?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Consent has been granted.

With reference to the last bill, the Chair has to read the final statement to say that: This bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Smoking In Public Places And The Workplace," 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.

We have one small piece of business left to do which should only take about five minutes. Government would just like to introduce a bill in second reading, not conclude second reading but introduce it so that we know that when we meet again will know that we have a bill that we are prepared to move and pass upon coming back.

This is Order 4, Mr. Speaker, An Act To Revise The Law About Pensions For Member Of The House Of Assembly, Bill 24, to be introduced by the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Order 4, Bill 24, An Act To Revise The Law About Pensions For Members Of The House Of Assembly, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law About Pensions For Members Of The House Of Assembly." (Bill 24)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to introduce this particular bill. It is one that is vital to have passed as quickly as possible, I might add. The federal government has been pressing to have it passed because it is offside with the Income Tax Act. Other jurisdictions have moved to put legislation and where it is offside - actually, in 1998 the former government passed through Cabinet to move this through. I think it was introduced twice in the House and did not get read, so we need to get with it. If not, it is offside with the Income Tax Act. What that means is that the Pension Plan is offside in terms of contributions and in terms of benefits.

What is needed to be done - this is the main piece of the bill - you have to take the MHA Pension Plan now and in part 3 and part 4 of the bill, you will see that part 3 sets up a registered pension plan that meets the qualifications of any registered pension plan under the Income Tax Act, which means you must have thirty years of service to be able to draw, you must have had reached the age of sixty or thirty years of service. There is a plan set up that meets all the requirements of the Income Tax Act at 2 per cent you will accumulate per year in that act. If you accumulate benefits of more than 2 per cent a year, it is offside with the Income Tax Act. There is no change in contributions or benefits. There is another plan going to be set up under the Consolidated Fund Service that will allow the contributions to remain the same, the benefits to remain the same, but it is outside the registered pension plan allowance.

Just to give an example: 41.9 per cent or the service cost in the plan. There is a contribution rate of 9 per cent by both government and by members. To meet the full service cost of that plan, we need about 13 per cent, which means the 9 per cent that is contributed by members goes into the registered plan, 4 per cent by government goes into the registered plan, the other 28.9 per cent has to be funded out of the Consolidated Fund Service. There will be an accounting record kept of that. It will be transparent. There will be one set of contributions, one cheque and so on. The same thing, there will not be two different plans when someone is a recipient of a pension or on contributions.

What is the implication of not passing this? It is that, if it is offside with the Income Tax Act, the 9 per cent contributions that you make are not deductible for tax purposes on your income tax because it is offside. You will have to pay taxes on it. There is sitting in the plan right now, as of the end of December, about $16.7 million. Only $6 million of that is onside. Almost $11 million is offside with the pension plan, which means there are implications. The federal government has come in and done an audit and they are watching to ensure that this goes through over the next while. That is why I think it is important. My colleague said in June -

MR. JOYCE: Sit down (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I will not sit down, I will say to the Member for Bay of Islands. I am going to explain this bill. They wanted it explained. That is the purpose of introducing it. I am going to do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: We don't want to hear about it tonight, I can tell you that.

MR. SULLIVAN: If you do not want to hear about it tonight, we will do it another time. I will leave that to our House Leader, but I will make reference to sections here. I think it is important that the public know exactly what legislation goes through here and it is important to know that.

MR. REID: Well, the public does not know what you are saying over there now, I can guarantee you that.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I have heard a lot of public comments on the MHA Pension Plan, I might add, but I am not going to get into that. I have heard a lot. We are trying to do now what constitutes the law, that has not been done since 1992, since the change occurred.

I do have an hour but I will not use it. I will just use the threat of an hour, that is all, only the threat of an hour. I do want to mention, that is one aspect of the plan. Another aspect, Mr. Speaker, is that there are - it is offside with the Pension Benefits Act, that all others are in - numerous amendments to bring it in line with the Pension Benefits Act.

There is another aspect too, Mr. Speaker. There is a designated beneficiary part to this too, where, if somebody does not have a spouse, or somebody will get survivor benefits, there can be a designated recipient of those benefits who is living -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, it is kind of difficult -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I will finish in a couple of minutes if I get time to finish.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not intending to prolong it. I realize people want to get it dealt with and introduced. At least I should have an opportunity to introduce a bill that is an important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, there is an opportunity to have a designated beneficiary if someone does not have a spouse. It could be a child, grandparent, that they may receive- in the case of a death of an individual, a survivor's benefit can be designated to other than the spouse if it is dependent on that individual. I think that is fair, and that is an opportunity to do that. There are other amendments, changes that are going to be deleted. For example, there is one part of the plan I will make reference to. There was an annuity that would be set up. That has changed because it was never used. It is not financially feasible to do that now.

There is another part, too. It does not change the qualification period, Mr. Speaker, to qualify for that. I know, with time, on this issue I will have an opportunity certainly when we deal with it in Committee or on closing of second reading.

Maybe members do not like to hear, and I might just go on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I just might, for a while. I might go through each line item of this bill yet, and explain what it is all about. They are lots of implications to it, in the millions of dollars of implications of tax purposes possibly on this bill. It applies to certain individuals, and certain ones it does not apply to. I think it is important. I will not go into them in detail now but in the clause of the bill if anybody wants an answer to any particular clause, I will certainly be willing to provide it.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Admit His Honour, the Administrator.

His Honour, the Administrator, takes the Chair.

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

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

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 4)

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 No. 2. (Bill 25)

HIS HONOUR THE ADMINISTRATOR (Clyde K. Wells): In Her Majesty's name, I thank Her Loyal Subjects, I accept their benevolence, and I assent to these bills.

MR. SPEAKER: Your Honour:

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

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act." (Bill 5)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957." (Bill 14)

A bill, "An Act To Repeal The Investment Contracts Act." (Bill 12)

A bill, "An Act To Repeal The Literacy Development Council Act." (Bill 6)

A bill, "An Act to Amend The City of Corner Brook Act, The City of Mount Pearl Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The St. John's Assessment Act." (Bill 15)

A bill, "An Act to Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000." (Bill 8)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991." (Bill 9)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Elections Act." (Bill 1)

A bill, "An Act To Establish A Financial Services Appeal Board." (Bill 11)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act." (Bill 10)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Rooms Corporation." (Bill 17)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Wildlife Act." (Bill 13)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Executive Council Act." (Bill 7)

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

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Natural Products Marketing Act And The Farm Practices Protection Act." (Bill 22)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act." (Bill 28)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act." (Bill 31)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999." (Bill 30)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The Municipal Elections Act." (Bill 29)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act." (Bill 27)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act." (Bill 19)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice Of Medicine In The Province." (Bill 21)

A bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Guarantee Of Loans To Local Authorities." (Bill 23)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act." (Bill 34)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act." (Bill 33)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Management Of Government Information For The Province." (Bill 16)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City Of St. John's Act." (Bill 37)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act." (Bill 35)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act." (Bill 39)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act." (Bill 26)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Lobbyist Registration Act." (Bill 38)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act." (Bill 36)

A bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Smoking In Public Places And The Workplace." (Bill 20)

HIS HONOUR THE ADMINISTRATOR: In Her Majesty's name, I assent to these bills.

His Honour the Administrator leaves the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker returns to the Chair.

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

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

It is moved that when this House adjourns today that its stands adjourned until the call of the Chair, the Speaker, or in your absence, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Speaker may give notice and thereupon the House shall meet at the time and place stated by that notice.

Before I move the official adjournment, Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank all members for their co-operation in the debates that have occurred, specifically with respect to the legislation.

With that, it is moved that this House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that this House do now adjourn to the call of the Chair or the call of the Deputy Speaker, if the Speaker should not be available.

All those in agreement?

SOME HON. MEMBER: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against?

Motion carried.

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

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned to the call of the Chair.