MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Humber West and Premier of the Province, with leave; the hon. the Member for Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile; the hon. the Member for St. John's West; the hon. the Member for Port de Grave; and the hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

Does the hon. the Premier have leave to make a statement to the House?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but before the Premier begins I would like to give notice at this time that we will on tomorrow be raising a point of privilege. We will need some time to compile a research, but I just wanted, in compliance with the rules which said we should give notice at the earliest opportunity, and it concerns the appearance of the Speaker and the Speaker's staff in a partisan political advertisement this past weekend. We will be entering a point of privilege tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Premier have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for allowing me leave to make this member's statement.

I rise today to congratulate our Province's newest Rhodes Scholar, Mr. Paul Boland, from Curling, in the great District of Humber West.

Paul is a graduate of Regina High School in Corner Brook and is currently attending Memorial University Medical School after receiving a Bachelor of Science with Honours in biochemistry.

He is twenty-three years of age and has already accomplished a great deal in his young life. He has received the Governor General's Medal, consistently been on the Principal's and Dean's list and, most recently, the Faculty of Medicine Dean's List.

Mr. Speaker, aside from his numerous academic achievements, Paul is a tremendous athlete, excelling in baseball. In 2001, he was selected as both Corner Brook's Male Athlete of the Year and the Province's best junior baseball player.

Paul has represented our Province on many occasions at the national level and also dedicates time to coaching minor baseball and mentoring young players.

Paul received the news just over a week ago and is justifiably very excited and very proud. However, Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure if his excitement matches that of his very, very proud parents, John and Colleen Boland.

Paul has decided to attend Oxford University in England, as is the privilege of all Rhodes Scholarship winners, where he plans to study cardiovascular medicine and play for the Oxford Kings Baseball Club.

I know that Paul will carry on a great tradition of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians competitive spirit there, as I was honoured to be the Captain of the Oxford Blues Hockey team when I attended the same University.

Mr. Speaker, as a recipient of this award myself in 1969, I know firsthand the hard work required and the immense rewards and opportunities that lie before Paul Boland.

I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join me as I extend congratulations to Paul Boland and his family on this tremendous accomplishment, and I wish him the very best in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to students in St. Lawrence in the District of Grand Bank for recently receiving the Most Spirited Award at an Allied Youth International Conference.

Eight students from the St. Lawrence Allied Youth Post #989, representing the Burin Peninsula, received the award for the most spirited poster during closing ceremonies of the seventy-fourth Allied Youth international conference held in Tatamagouche, Nova Scotia.

The group included: Jordan Rennie; Nicholas Giovannini; Dawn Benteau; Laura Pittman; Cassandra Turpin; Alison Dunphy; Juliette Dupre; Deanne Slaney, along with the accompanying teacher, Angela Rose.

The conference promoted healthy lifestyle choices for the students and provided motivational speakers and information sessions for them.

One of the most popular sessions was a motivational presentation by Terry Kelly, who is an accomplished singer and songwriter from Newfoundland and Labrador. His talk was about how he overcame obstacles with his blindness to achieve his goals. Through songs and stories, he captured the students' attention and they left with a positive message that they, too, can achieve anything they put their mind to.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the students from St. Lawrence on winning this award.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, and Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to congratulate Mr. Roy Sheaves, a Port aux Basques resident and long-time Lions Club member, who was awarded the Melvin Jones Fellowship earlier this fall. This fellowship is named for the founder of the International Association of Lions Clubs. It is the foundation's highest honour and represents humanitarian qualities such as generosity, compassion, and concern for the less fortunate. This fellowship is given to members who make a significant contribution to the charitable Lions Club International foundation.

Mr. Sheaves and the Port aux Basques Lions Club made the donation last year, which was sent to help tsunami victims in southeast Asia, and Mr. Sheaves was elected to receive the award.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sheaves has been an active Lion for thirty-five years and has held various leadership positions during that time, including district governor. He has also been a volunteer fireman for thirty-five years and was involved in the Boy Scout movement for twenty-five years, achieving the rank of regional commissioner.

Mr. Sheaves' name will be posted at the Lions International Headquarters, he received a plaque and the club received a banner for his efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Mr. Roy Sheaves and the Port aux Basques Lions Club on receiving the Melvin Jones Fellowship Award.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Today I feel privileged to stand in the House and bring greetings to a man who is a very special part of my life, and indeed, of the lives of all our family, my dad, who is celebrating his ninety-fifth birthday today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Dad is a person who, for as long as I can remember, has given so much of himself to his family and to his community. His life, until a couple of years ago when he took up residence at Glenbrook Lodge, revolved around his family, to whom he was a great example, and his community. He was very active with the Knights of Columbus, the Benevolent Irish Society, as well as with the St. Vincent de Paul Society.

He is still relatively active, getting out to visit his family three or four times a week, and his good sense of humour still prevails as any of the staff at Glenbrook Lodge will attest.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I, on behalf of all our family and friends, wish a very happy ninety-fifth birthday to my dad, Mr. Jim Ridgley.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to congratulate the Bay Arena for introducing, Active Living, a new promotional fitness program for healthy living. It works quite simple, family and friends can skate at the Bay Arena in Bay Roberts for up to one hour every week for free.

Joyce Morgan of the Bay Arena spearheaded the venture. Businesses from Marysvale to Spaniards Bay-Tilton pay for one-hour ice time so that families can become more active. Like most sports, skating is a good source of exercise.

Mr. Speaker, besides having their businesses promoted, the sponsor of the week gets their business's name on their new Web site and on the sign outside the Bay Arena. For businesses who want to give something back to the community and get people more active - the Active Living promotion was so successful that, in fact, businesses currently have the Bay Arena booked every week up to the end of January, 2006.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating the Bay Arena on their new promotional fitness program, Active Living.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the efforts and accomplishments of the 840 Indian Bay Lions Royal Canadian Air Cadet Squadron.

On October 15, 2005, at the Annual General Meeting of the Air Cadet League of Canada, the Indian Bay squadron was presented with the Robert Arklie Best ACR Drill Team Award. This award is presented to the best drill team at the annual ceremonial review. This is an impressive feat, considering that a total of twenty-one squadrons participated in the annual event. The squadron from Indian Bay also received a Gold Proficiency Award for the third year in a row. Only four of the twenty-one squadrons participating received this honour.

In addition to these impressive team accomplishments, the Indian Bay squadron has also produced a number of exceptional individual efforts. Most recently, Matthew Button travelled to Calgary where he represented our Province, and won, in the Air Cadet League of Canada Effective Speaking Contest. Matthew received this award after winning the provincial speak-off in April.

Individuals such as Matthew, and organizations like the 840 Indian Bay cadet squadron represent the very best of what this Province has to offer.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of this House to join with me in congratulating Matthew Button and the 840 Indian Bay Air Cadet Squadron on their achievements, and wish them the very best in their future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my hon. colleagues that Saturday, December 3, was the United Nations International Day of Persons with Disabilities. This day was initiated in 1982 to promote an understanding of disability issues, and to mobilize support for the dignity, rights and well-being of persons with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, approximately 10 per cent of people in Newfoundland and Labrador have a disability. We believe that their needs must be actively considered in the planning, development and implementation of government strategies that may affect their lives.

Along with other government partners, we are working to enhance the employability of persons with disabilities, and to increase the employment opportunities available to them. This includes the need for education and training, to connect employers with persons with disabilities, and to build knowledge.

Mr. Speaker, to help mark the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, this week we will be releasing the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Labour Market Agreement for Persons with Disabilities Report 2005-2006. This document reflects the efforts throughout government to allow persons with disabilities to live as independently as possible within their communities. This includes nearly $7 million in investments made by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement. I can assure you, the members on this side of the House want to say that we recognize the United Nations International Day of Persons with Disabilities. I guess, when we hear the figure the minister just mentioned, 10 per cent is a staggering figure when we look at our population here in this Province. We have to continue to do everything to see that the needs of those people with disabilities are taken care of.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things I would like for the minister to consider when they dive into the process of considering the concerns of those people. One that I know has been brought to my attention a couple of times in the district is, people with disabilities, where they are trying to get some funds for the conversion of vehicles so they can access and get around and travel. I know that has been a problem because I have dealt with the departments, and hopefully the minister will look at that.

The other thing of some concern at this point in time is, I know there is a strike ongoing with regard to buildings being open, and they are not totally accessible now due to a strike with the elevators and so on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. BUTLER: By leave, just to conclude?

MR. SPEAKER: With leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. BUTLER: Just to conclude.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the minister, when we mentioned here the $7 million invested, I can assure you, any money that can go in to help those people's lives, and make them have a better independent living, we are all for it, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, yes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. The things that are mentioned in his statement are very serious issues.

On Friday night past, I had the opportunity to attend the Labrador West Canadian Association for Community Living branch in Labrador West, where there were over seventy people in attendance. They had to report and acknowledge all of the work that has been done in the community of Labrador West to improve accessibility for many of our disabled residents.

I also had the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, to serve on a committee called the Labrador West Employment Corporation where, at that time, we encouraged the Iron Ore Company of Canada, and other mining companies in the area, to hire persons with disabilities. That has been done, as other employers in the area have as well.

Mr. Speaker, these are important issues. We are responsible for taking care and improving the life of persons with disabilities within our communities, and that is only going to be achieved by more awareness and more education in this area.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My first question is for the Premier.

Premier, it is four days until Judgement Day for the Abitibi mill at Stephenville. The government has sat back during the recent unfolding of this process while the union and the company struggle to find common ground for a deal.

I ask the Premier: Has government been asked to provide a concilliator or has government offered any assistance during these negotiations? If not, why, with only four days left, is government not willing to work with the parties to find a solution?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

First of all, to make the assumption, and then to make another leap, the assertion, that government has sat back and done nothing is absolutely false. I spoke to the president of the union as recently as yesterday morning, for example. We have been engaged and being provided with advice and providing advice to the extent that we can. Mediation and arbitration services are available through my colleague, the Department of Labour. Both parties understand and know that; yet, neither one of those parties have asked for that yet.

Is government willing to assist in any way that we can? I think we have already demonstrated that. If there is a way to continue to do that, then those parties recognize right now, if they need services from the government, that the member is talking about, they would be provided immediately.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, sitting quietly by is the same as doing nothing, I would suggest to the minister.

You have repeatedly stated that different groups in the community and so on are on side with the offer that government made some weeks ago, probably months ago now. This is not about whether people support or do not support what government offered to the mill at Stephenville or to the people of that region. We have two combatants going at it here, and a workforce, a community and a region, which will suffer the consequences if it is not resolved.

When is your government, Minister, going to stop playing spectator on this issue and get involved? Why are you waiting for the union or the company to ask? The community is asking and the community needs your involvement. When are you going to do something proactive rather than sit back?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that - to suggest that this government has not been proactive on this file, maybe it is the Opposition that needs to be a little proactive in their thinking. It is a fact that the community leadership, the union leadership, and the rank and file individuals in the Stephenville and Bay St. George area support the initiative that we put forward for the people in that area. Fact number two: The member has alleged that we are sitting back and being a spectator. Absolutely false.

Let me ask the member this question, let me ask the Opposition this question: Do you believe, or do they believe, that we should go in and say to the membership of the union, yes, strip your contract and give Abitibi whatever they want? If that is what they believe, let them go out there and say it. We won't be saying it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are certainly not suggesting that anybody be allowed to strip anybody's contracts, and we take the issue far more seriously than the Member for Lake Melville, who laughs whenever we ask a question about the Abitibi situation. This is indeed very serious and we ask government to get on with it. There is no point in making an offer if it doesn't get resolved. Failure is still failure.

To shift gears here, for the same minister: Minister, I asked you a question on Thursday past about a hearing that is set before the Public Utilities Board on December 7^th, that deals with $24 million in surplus that Newfoundland Power has gained as a result of a tax settlement. You indicated in your answer that your department had it under advisement and assessment and when you made a decision you would decide what you were going to do. Minister, I understand that the deadline for intervention by government went by on November 23th, and at that hearing on December 7^th the Public Utilities Board will decide what Newfoundland Power can do with that surplus.

I ask the minister: Is government now, albeit this late hour, going to try and intervene in this hearing and demand that this surplus money, $24 million, be returned to the electricity users in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to have to clarify what I did say on Thursday, that we are assessing the information and the question that came forward from the member; that we are assessing it.

Now, with respect to intervention, government already has intervened, Mr. Speaker, in all issues related to the PUB, and the intervention is called the Consumer Advocate, and the Consumer Advocate is appointed by government to represent consumers' interests.

Now, with respect to the details of the issue: Newfoundland Power had an outstanding dispute with Revenue Canada, it was settled in their favour, and that provided them with an additional $24 million this year. They have applied to the PUB for $10 million to be applied to depreciation and expenses on this year so there may not be any increases next year. Part of that application process is that they have asked the PUB: How do we deal with the other $14 million? PUB hired Grant Thornton. If the member wants to see that report, go to the website and he will see it. We have the Consumer Advocate in place and we have the absolute confidence that what should be done for the ratepayers on this issue will be done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister: The appointment of a Consumer Advocate does not, in and of itself, remove responsibility from government to intervene. We have lots of precedents in this Province where, notwithstanding that the Consumer Advocate appeared on behalf of consumers, government departments, through the appropriate ministers, when needed, intervened on behalf of government. I am suggesting here - in fact, I have spoken to the Consumer Advocate on this very issue, who confirms my understanding, that it is indeed quite appropriate for government to intervene themselves. In fact, it would only strengthen his case if the government were to intervene here. Oil users have received a rebate program from this government - albeit, not a sufficient one - while electricity users have literally been left out in the cold.

I ask the minister: Why are you not willing to intervene at this hearing and see that the $24 million surplus is returned to the electricity users in the Province to help them go through this coming winter? Why aren't you intervening? Don't pass the buck to the Consumer Advocate.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Here are the facts of the matter. Newfoundland Power won an outstanding issue or a case with Revenue Canada, that they could not predict, that put $24 million extra in their bottom line. They have applied to the Public Utilities Board to put $10 million against expenses that would negate any cost increases or a request for any increases next year. That is a positive thing, as I see it.

The second thing with the (inaudible), you take the $10 million from the $24 million and you are left with $14 million. Newfoundland Power has then asked the PUB to decide: Where should that go? The PUB may decide, based upon the intervention of the Consumer Advocate, who this government has confidence in and will continue to have confidence in, to return that to the ratepayers. This is a regulated activity, one that we support and a regulated activity where we appoint, on behalf of all citizens, the Consumer Advocate. We continue to have confidence in him and his ability to represent consumers on this - what may be a very good news story.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say, although we know the Minister of Finance was not prepared to do anything for the ratepayers in this Province with any kind of program - he did it for the oil users, but not for the electrical users. Here is an opportunity for government to do something for electricity users by intervening in that process.

My next question is for the Minister of Government Services. Minister, I made an inquiry of your office several weeks ago regarding oil companies insistence that customers order a minimum of $200 of home heating fuel before a delivery would be made. You stated in response to me that you would speak to the Public Utilities Board for guidance and assistance. Minister, I have spoken to the Chair of the Public Utilities Board myself, who says that the board has absolutely no authority to deal with this issue, which you ought to have known.

Now, Minister, there are people on fixed and low incomes who cannot afford a minimum order of $200 of oil in order to have it delivered. Instead of deferring or trying to defer this issue to the Public Utilities Board and deflecting your obligation to help, what, minister, do you intend to do to help these people who do not have $200 minimum?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned about our citizens and the oil in this Province and electricity rates here. We are doing everything in our power right now to help those people, and my department is certainly - the PUB, they do have the resources there to look at this situation and we will indeed look at what the hon. member just asked there and see if there is anything that we can do in this government.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: My questions today are for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I previously asked the minister to update us on the Stephenville flood, and today I wish to follow up with additional questions.

Mr. Speaker, the affected residents are in limbo and staying in rented accommodations or with family and friends. There is a real concern about the length of time and lack of information regarding the proposed plans for those affected by the flood. I ask the minister if he can tell those affected, when will these plans be available to them?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the flood of September 27 certainly has been devastating for a number of families in the Stephenville area. There were 156 families evacuated at the time. Six families have been able to return to their homes. We now have 150 families who are either in rented accommodations or are staying with family members. In order to make decisions as to what is going to happen with these families in the long term, we certainly needed thorough assessments done because not only did their houses flood, Mr. Speaker, the whole infrastructure was torn out of the neighbourhood, the roads were torn out, the sewer lines were torn out, the water was tore out. Mr. Speaker, there were even homes that were moved from their foundations, moved out into the middle of the street.

The assessments, for the most part, have been recently completed. I can speak for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that there has been ongoing communications with the town and with the federal government. We will continue to work with the federal government to see what relief will be supplied under the funds that are available to help make sure that these families are re-established appropriately.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, along with concerns being raised about the fact that people are not getting back into their homes in a timely manner, there is a lot of uncertainty about whether people will be forced to refurbish existing homes, rather than move to a new subdivision.

I ask the minister: When can residents expect to hear from him and government regarding the situation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I had indicated, it is certainly a very serious issue that these families and this neighborhood within the Town of Stephenville has certainly been devastated. As I said, it is not a matter that the water from the brook had backed into the community, into that neighbourhood, the river actually broke, the brook did, and it came through the neighbourhood and it tore out the infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, this government has been working with the Town of Stephenville and with the MO officials to get the assessments done, but, Mr. Speaker, what is also important in here, there is another partner, and that is the federal government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: We need to work with the federal government to see what commitments, as well, that they will make to the people of Stephenville. Mr. Speaker, we would like to deal with this as soon as possible, but we need commitment from our federal officials as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: I say to the minister, the guidelines are already there. It is the same guidelines as there were in the Badger situation. So, I think that government realizes the first number of dollars they have to spend, and after that, it is being shared by the federal government. The more costs it incurs, then the federal government picks up more.

Mr. Speaker, the Badger flood of 2003 was a terrible disaster, but with the help of both levels of government and a huge volunteer effort by groups, such as: the Red Cross, Royal Canadian Legion, Lions Clubs, municipalities, church groups and individuals, these people are now getting their lives back to normal. It is my understanding that there has not been as much money raised through volunteer groups for Stephenville as there was for Badger.

I ask the minister, whether the provincial government will commit to offer additional assistance to cover any shortfall from the volunteer groups so that the people involved in the Stephenville flood receive the same level of compensation as received by the people in Badger?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very important point in this whole issue. There are guidelines that have been established by different levels of government as to what types of compensation can be paid. There may be requests that go above and beyond what may be laid out in policy at this time. As he mentioned, there has been fundraising efforts in the past to help communities and there is fundraising efforts to help the people of Stephenville at this time. But, Mr. Speaker, as we look at the assessments and are able to see what we can fund and where we can help, again, we want the federal government, as well, to come to the table with us, to work with the Town of Stephenville, to work with the provincial government and let us know if there is any type of funding that may be above and beyond what their policy stipulates. They can look at it as compassionate grounds to help the people in Stephenville.

Mr. Speaker, we need the federal government to be there at that table and tell us that if there is funding outside the guidelines that they will be willing to assist, just like we have been asked as the provincial government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, since taking office, this government has created turmoil in the regulation of fuel prices that has resulted in the interruption formula being used far too often to gouge consumers, and gas prices being much higher in this Province than they have been in other provinces.

Mr. Saunders was fired first, then it was Mr. Toms, and government continues to hide behind the excuse of the Public Utilities Board. Will the Minister of Government Services take some responsibility for the problems she has caused by having the petroleum products office in turmoil and advertise for a full-time commissioner who can represent consumers as their watchdog in this Province, to protect them and give them the necessary break on fuel prices that they so desperately need, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, pricing petroleum comes under the PUB. Nothing has changed. The former Administration had the same regulations. The only difference here is that we did put one of their appointments - how do I say this, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS WHALEN: We looked at the structure of that, and when the expiration of the contract was up, Mr. Saunders was let go.

I need to assure the hon. member over there, there is nothing changed in the regulations. They are the same regulations that they had in place before we took government, and the regulations are indeed working.

The market is very volatile there. We cannot control the market prices, but we do control the regulations and the interruption formula, and the regulations have been working quite well. The hon. member knows that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, yes, they may be the same guidelines, but the guidelines under the previous Administration were used eleven times: nine times to bring prices down, only twice to increase them, and that was for the purpose of making sure there was supply used.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to think that the guidelines are working. The guidelines are not working when every single day, sometime twice a week, rates go up. While the minister and others continue to try to convince the people of this Province that gas prices have been set fairly, there is evidence stating that is simply not true. Prices here in this Province are currently higher than other areas by margins greater than they had been before. If the formula is the same, maybe the formula needs to be fixed.

Will the minister now hire a new commissioner - my original question - and assign their first task to conduct a review of how prices are regulated in the Province so the gouging can end?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I have to state again that the Province has no control over the world oil prices. It is a volatile market there. We have regulations in place to oversee this; and, when the interruption formula is needed, the PUB makes that decision. The hon. member over there knows quite well how this works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS WHALEN: I will tell the hon. member right now that we cannot control hurricanes like have happened there, and the factors that have happened in the world market, but we can, indeed, look at our regulations. Our regulations are, indeed, working for this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, the minister is quite right: I know how it works. That is why I am so incest over this. This whole process -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Incensed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: Incensed, Mr. Speaker.

This whole process here that she is getting on with - the only hurricanes -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace. He was putting a question.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious to the people of this Province that the Premier treats this as a joke. He treats it as a joke. This minister has failed the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, government passed legislation that it claimed would lead - here is another one - to rate reductions in automobile insurance premiums, particularly for young people. The PUB was brought into the fray, again, I guess, the beating board for government. The companies filed their rate applications. Some of them have been approved by the Public Utilities Board; yet, young people are being forced to renew their premiums at the same rate as before.

I ask the minister: Why is this happening, and why are young people not experiencing the rate reductions that they were promised?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, since this government took office, we have seen the consumers in this Province have over 20 per cent savings on their insurance premiums.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: We had 15 per cent in the year 2004. We have now, since August 1, 2005, another 5 per cent. We have eliminated the age, the gender and the marital status from our insurance, which -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS WHALEN: - young people in this Province now, some of them, have up to 46 per cent in savings.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, if this wasn't so serious, it would be funny. If this wasn't so serious - there is not a person out there receiving rate decreases. I haven't had a call from one person who has received any genuine savings.

Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: Oh, yes, they can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member if he would put his question quickly now.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Lake Melville, I will tell you one thing, they can reach me a lot better than they can reach him.

Mr. Speaker, the deadline for filing rate applications by insurance companies -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind all hon. members that the time for Question Period is limited to thirty minutes, and time is passing. I ask the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace to put his question quickly.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that some of these applications have been approved by the PUB, while others have not been approved. Those applications that have been approved are still not resulting in rate reductions.

I ask the minister: What enforcement mechanism does she have to ensure the promised reductions become reality, instead of simple political rhetoric?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the PUB is reviewing the filings from the insurance companies right now, and the majority of the filings have been filed, as far as I know from the PUB, and that the insurance companies will be returning 5 per cent to the consumers in this Province, retroactive to August 1, 2005.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. I say to the Premier, there has been a long outstanding issue in this Province concerning the public sector and concerning pay equity for women whose rights were taken away by discriminatory legislation. The Minister of Finance does not seem willing to resolve this injustice despite repeated demands from the NDP, women's groups and labour organizations across this country. I say to the Premier, this issue is not going to go away and will continue to be raised until it is fixed.

Would the Premier now, on the eve of the anniversary of the Montreal massacre, the grossest form of discrimination against women, do what has to be done to resolve this issue and show the women of this Province that his government will not continue to support this discrimination against women?

MR. HARRIS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that this government has the same concerns that he has, that this is considered to be a very grave issue, in my personal opinion and in the opinion of many members of Cabinet and caucus in this particular government. This is a black mark on this Province and on this government, quite frankly, and something has to be done. I welcome the question from the hon. member.

As the hon. member knows, during the strike we made an offer to try and settle this. I do understand, from the solicitor for NAPE at the time, that there were some legal difficulties with her actually endorsing the possibility of any kind of a settlement because of legal complications, so that settlement was put on the table with the good intention of trying to resolve this. Three hundred million dollars is not available to settle this, $100 million is not available to settle this. This is a question of interest and compounded interest; however, I would encourage the parties to get together, all parties here who are generally interested in achieving a settlement, to try and come to their bottom line, to come to a number that is a reasonable number that this government, this Cabinet and this caucus can get their teeth into.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier that during a strike is not the opportune time to try and straighten away major issues like this, although it is an opportunity - the strike was about many other issues that took the priorities. The onus is on government to correct this problem. It was governments that created it.

I say to the Premier, again: Will his government now do the right thing at this particular time in our history where our financial reserves are now considerably greater than they were in years gone by?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have personally spoken to Carol Anne Furlong on this issue, and it is an issue which she has raised on behalf of her members. I have also spoken to Joyce Hancock, in an inadvertent meeting, actually, that we had out in the hall a couple of weeks ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Those were Joyce's words, not mine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I can assure you, without disclosing any Cabinet confidence, many, many of our Cabinet ministers are very anxious to see this matter resolved and want to see it resolved.

Our government is open to consideration of what we consider to be a reasonable settlement in this particular matter. We certainly encourage all the parties to come to the table; but, again, there is only a certain amount that is affordable.

Now, I know you cannot put a price on doing something that is right, and I accept that fully, but by the same token we have to come up with something that is affordable so that it does not compromise other social initiatives that this government wants to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West, time for a very quick supplementary.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier initiate such a meeting between the groups and lay a proposal on the table to them?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

The time allocation is for a very brief reply.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will undertake that a committee of Cabinet will certainly get together and look at this initiative. It has been already discussed generally in Cabinet. We would have to go to the Department of Finance, of course, and get the numbers that are behind this, of course, and come down to some reasonable numbers, and then prepare to sit down -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - actually sit down with the various officials and the various leaders involved, but we need all parties at the table. There cannot be any loose ends of any claims out there with regard to a pay equity claim. It is also incumbent upon them to sort of come together, see what they can come up with, and we will work with them to try and find a solution if we can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Health.

Mr. Wilfred Benson continues to live in a tent in the woods behind Ruth Avenue in Mount Pearl. Mr. Benson suffers from schizophrenia and paranoia, and has been in the Province for a number of years. His family and others have expressed serious concerns about the lack of attention being paid to his case by health officials.

Minister, I want to ask if your department is fully aware of this situation, and why he is being left to fall through the cracks in our health care system when we know that there is treatment required and he needs it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: We are fully aware, I say, Mr. Speaker, to the issue that has been raised by my colleague opposite. It is a complex case because here we have an individual who, by choice, has elected a certain lifestyle. It is unusual, it is unorthodox, but, nevertheless, he has made that choice in his own life.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we are fully aware of the fact of his circumstances. We have assigned a social worker dedicated to deal with the issues surrounding this particular gentleman, and we will certainly monitor any developments with respect to this gentleman who is living in these arrangements as you have described.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, it is not the lifestyle choice that concerns me. It is the fact that this is a patient who is mentally ill, requires treatment, and is not receiving it. We are moving into the winter months; it is a serious concern.

I want to ask the minister - obviously, our Mental Health Act is not working when we can have situations like this that we are not dealing with. I guess I need to ask what the Department of Health is doing, and what the plan of action is before we get into the cold winter months?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, there are privacy issues that are at play in this particular case, as I mentioned, and it is important that this point be emphasized. There is a social worker who is dedicated to this particular matter.

With respect to mental health services in the Province, Mr. Speaker, it was only several months ago when we announced a new mental health framework leading to a brand new Mental Health Act.

Mr. Speaker, the existing mental health legislation in this Province is some thirty-one years old. I look forward, and this government looks forward, to introducing in this Legislature, in the spring of 2006, a new Mental Health Act, which, Mr. Speaker, will deal with gaps in the system that presently exist. Mr. Speaker, in the development of that act, I might add, in response to the question by my hon. friend, there are consultations that are ongoing.

With respect to the specific issue, if I may finish, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have about forty seconds left. Is there a supplementary question?

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

MS JONES: Actually, Mr. Speaker, I do have another question and it is regarding the flu influenza. I have had a number of calls from people who are telling me that the vaccine is not readily available, who have been receiving it in the last number of years.

As we all know, the Province of Ontario provides this vaccine free of charge to all of its residents. The reports this year indicated there have been substantial savings in the Ontario health care system.

I would like to ask the minister if he is prepared to make that available to all of the residents in our Province.

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

He will have time for a brief response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly not aware of any shortage with respect to dealing with this issue; however, it is a public health issue and, when issues of public health are raised, it is certainly my job, as the minister, to make an inquiry to ensure that individuals are protected.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Standing Order 63 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Pursuant to Standing Order 63.(3), I give notice regarding a private member's motion that on Wednesday, December 7, we will be moving the motion put forward by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair dealing with the Lower Churchill.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like today to present a number of petitions on behalf of residents from the District of Burin-Placentia West, in which they are calling for and supporting the establishment of a kidney dialysis unit on the Burin Peninsula, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if I could, I would just like for a few minutes to speak on this matter. I have to be quite honest, Mr. Speaker, up until about a year-and-a-half ago I was not too much in the know about kidney dialysis. I do not pretend to say that I am an expert in any degree, but over the past year-and-a-half, as I have met with the committee on the Burin Peninsula and have delved more into this subject, I find there are so many challenges that these dialysis patients face. In fact, Mr. Speaker, to gain a greater insight into this challenge by so many people, I, in fact, took an afternoon and visited a dialysis unit site here in the city to see what is involved in that, to speak with professionals in the field, and to garner more information on this particular topic.

Mr. Speaker, when I look to the residents on the Burin Peninsula who are involved in this, their committee, and I look to people who are on the committee that have been directly affected by kidney problems and the need for dialysis. There is a lady who serves on the committee whose husband passed away due to kidney failure, and, Mr. Speaker, her commitment to this cause is noble. I think much of her waking day and hours are constantly involved in putting this agenda forward.

Secondly, a lady who is presently receiving dialysis, who has to travel to Clarenville three times a week to receive the dialysis - I think that is the uniqueness of this disease. We have other diseases where people can travel to specialists and so on and so forth, but with this one, you are left with very few options. One, being that, if you are a candidate for home dialysis, that is one thing and you can receive that in your home, but if you are not, then you are left with two options. One of those things being that the patient has to relocate -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. JACKMAN: Just by leave to finish up, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I guess what we have here is people who are left with very limited choices. They either relocate or they have to travel, and we know the expenses that are incurred in this. The people of this petition - and there are thousands of names here - are calling on government to look at this matter and, hopefully, we will see a dialysis unit established on the Burin Peninsula.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I wonder if I could have the indulgence of members of the House for a moment? My colleague, the Minister of Health, when you went through tabling of documents, was engaged in another matter with one of our colleagues, and he wanted to table a document today. So, I am wondering if we could just have leave to revert to that for just one moment to allow the Minister of Health to table the necessary document that he wants to table and then we can move directing into Orders of the Day?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank colleagues opposite, Mr. Speaker.

In accordance with section 75(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, I wish to table the Report of the Minister's Advisory Committee on the operations of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank colleagues opposite.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

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

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

Order 1, actually, Mr. Speaker, today, Address in Reply and we look forward to my colleague, the new Member for Exploits, making his maiden speech in the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the people of Exploits for their overwhelming support on June 23 of this year. However, Mr. Speaker, such a campaign cannot be as successful as it was without a good, organized effort by a team of dedicated volunteers.

Mr. Speaker, I also take this opportunity to thank the people who made up that incredible team, from my campaign manager, chief financial officer, the people who managed the headquarters, signage people, poll captains, including the people who went door-to-door with me day and night throughout the Exploits District for three weeks.

Mr. Speaker, to say thank you hardly seems fitting, but these people told me many times that they would do it again because they believed in this government, they believed in our leader, Premier Danny Williams, and that they believed in me.

Mr. Speaker, family is most important. I would like to thank my wife today, Rosemary, my brother, Pleaman, my sister, Marie Rowsell, my mother, Levina Forsey and my mother-in-law, Josephine Morgan. These people have supported all my endeavours without question. But, if I may, there is one other person who played a major role in my life. Actually, he was my role model. He taught me the principles of life. He was a navigator, a fisherman and a logger, but, unfortunately, he passed away at the early age of forty-five when I was eighteen. His name was Chesley Joshua Forsey.

Mr. Speaker, since being elected five months ago to the House of Assembly, for the District of Exploits, I have had the opportunity to respond to many enquiries from constituents and met with most of the community leaders. I have travelled through the district on a number of occasions and attended many civic celebrations. Mr. Speaker, I was also afforded the opportunity to engage in public meetings with a couple of communities which allowed me to register the concerns of the residents of these communities.

Mr. Speaker, the highlight of my visitations was when I was invited to the Memorial Veterans Pavilion at the Dr. Twomey Centre in Botwood. To have the privilege to sit at a meeting of legion members and war veterans was very rewarding. Actually, to be referred to as the young fellow, I thought was complimentary, and then I realized that some of them were thirty years my senior. Mr. Speaker, this being the Year of the Veteran and being the 60^th anniversary of the end of World War II, it was at that meeting I was gently reminded of the contribution of our young men and women who answered the call of duty and were instrumental in aiding to the end of this great war.

Mr. Speaker, the Exploits is full of history and great tourism attractions. The theme is our region is Exploits Wild and Free. The Exploits River is one of the greatest salmon rivers in the Province for sport fishing. People come from all across the Province, and from outside the Province as well, to enjoy the recreation on this great river.

Mr. Speaker, the Community of Glovers Harbour in the Exploits District is the home of the giant squid, the biggest ever seen. Tourists from all over the country enjoy viewing the replica of this enormous creature. Further on, to Leading Tickles, tourists flock to the Ocean View Park to witness caplin roll on the beaches, watch for whales, and enjoy looking at the huge icebergs that flow into Notre Dame Bay. Mr. Speaker, Wild and Free is an appropriate theme for our region. There are many other attractions with all kinds of walking trails and sight seeing adventures.

Mr. Speaker, the Exploits is rich with history, from the days of the Beothuks, to the start of the paper and ore concentrate being shipped from the Port of Botwood, to the major role that our people played in the Second World War. Botwood was a strategic site and very advantageous to the allies in the Second World War. Mr. Speaker, just this past summer Botwood was recognized as an historic site by Parks Canada, a recognition that was rightly deserved. History will tell all of us about the connection the Exploits had to fishing, logging, shipping and, of course, the railway which was what this region was built on.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to comment on a few positive notes related to the direction of this government, and the effect it has had on the Exploits District.

This government is committed to improving health care. This was very obvious when we saw the need to upgrade the Dr. Hugh Twomey Centre in Botwood. Over the summer, this government undertook major renovations to this facility, which included roof repairs, walls and floors. May I add, Mr. Speaker, besides the service this facility provides, it also employs 132 professional skilled workers.

Mr. Speaker, municipal infrastructure and regional services is another area this government has made great strides in, in the district. Besides the water and sewer projects approved this year for the communities of Cockles Cove and Leading Tickles, the Towns of Botwood and Peterview recently linked into the regional water supply of Grand Falls-Windsor and Bishop's Falls, at a total project cost of $7 million which was cost-shared by the three levels of government: federal, provincial and municipal.

Mr. Speaker, there were some road upgrades approved this year for the district that were desperately needed, and will improve better access to the communities affected.

I was also pleased to have been able to get funding approved for upgrades to the town hall and fire hall for the Town of Bishop's Falls. Mr. Speaker, the Lions Club and the Boys and Girls Club of Botwood were housed in the one building. This past summer, this building was destroyed by fire. The Boys and Girls Club have over 250 members registered, and the list of activities and programs offered by the club are phenomenal. They offer such programs as youth engagement proposal, a project centred on social policy for youth living in rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador. Other activities include: computer training, tutoring, tours of Memorial University and the Marine Institute. However, Mr. Speaker, their biggest undertaking was organizing and managing the summer recreational program for the town.

Mr. Speaker, recognizing the valuable need for this club, and the initiatives undertaken by them, I had the support of my colleagues in government to help them find temporary accommodations and provide emergency funding to support them in their efforts to finding or building a new home.

Mr. Speaker, the program initiated this year by Municipal Affairs and Minister Byrne under the Community Enhancement Program provided funding for community infrastructure and meaningful employment in the district. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with the progress made under this program. We were able to approve projects for twelve applications.

Mr. Speaker, some of these projects included: upgrade to a gear storage building in Morris Cove; much needed renovations to the fish plant in Leading Tickles; upgrade to a recreation building in Northern Arm; and repairs to the Interfaith Goodwill Centre in Botwood.

Mr. Speaker, other projects were approved for: the Exploits Valley Development Association; the Town of Point Leamington; the Lions Club in Botwood; the Knights of Columbus in Bishop's Falls; the Community of Fortune Harbour; the Town of Point of Bay; and also Your Strength-is-Our Strength in Peterview. Mr. Speaker, these programs created much needed employment and will provide an enduring benefit to the communities.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my sincere appreciation to my colleagues for their support and direction since becoming the Member for the District of Exploits on June 23. It is indeed noteworthy that this team effort approach is the foundation that fosters a true working relationship for the benefit of not only my district but also for the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I am excited about the opportunity to participate in the management and growth of future opportunities for Newfoundland and Labrador, and believe that this proactive approach, under the direction of our leader, Premier Williams, will result in long-term sustainable benefits for the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, I am also excited about the challenges that lie ahead, and firmly believe that this government will meet, and exceed, all expectations of the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a part of this team. I will continue to work hard over the balance of this term of office to achieve effective representation and to address any area that will collectively, or individually, benefit the people of the District of Exploits.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a privilege to address the House today, and I wish to take this opportunity to extend the compliments of the season to all the members and their families, and extend sincere best wishes for a joyous Christmas and a healthy, rewarding, new year.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I want to say to my colleague, a well done job for his first speech. It has been a tradition in this House - it is probably the only time that all members on both sides of the House, irrespective of our political differences or our political parties, where we extend the courtesy to a member to be listened to in his or her first maiden speech, and I do want to say congratulations to him on a job well done.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to move to Motion 4 on the Order Paper. Do you wish me to read it out, Mr. Speaker? Do you wish me to read out the motion? I certainly can.

For the record, Motion 4 is: WHEREAS, in accordance with section 3 of the Citizens' Representative Act, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, on a Resolution of this House of Assembly, by Order in Council dated December 14, 2001, appointed Fraser March to the Office of Citizens' Representative;

AND WHEREAS the Citizens' Representative, Fraser March, has, in accordance with subsection 7(1) of the Citizens' Representative Act been suspended as the Citizens' Representative;

AND WHEREAS section 6 of the Citizens' Representative Act provides that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may, on Resolution of this House of Assembly, for cause remove the Citizens' Representative from office;

AND WHEREAS there is cause to remove Fraser March from the Office of Citizens' Representative;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by this House of Assembly that Fraser March be removed from the Office of Citizens' Representative.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader has called Motion 4. The debate on this motion will be in accordance with Standing Order 46, and the debate can begin now.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present an amendment to this motion as put forward. I understand it has been approved by the Table officers and it has been seconded by the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

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

MS FOOTE: I move that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor, "Fraser March be given an opportunity to state his case to the House of Assembly before a vote is taken regarding his removal from the Office of Citizens' Representative".

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has listened to the amendment as put forward by the Member for Grand Bank, seconded by the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

The House will recess to consider whether or not this amendment is in order.

The House is now in recess.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair rules on the amendment put forward by the Member for Grand Bank, and seconded by the Member for Grand Fall-Buchans, that the amendment is in order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, before the Member for Grand Bank proceeds to make her comments, I would like to put myself on the record as to my involvement in this particular issue involving Mr. March.

I am a member of the Opposition, the MHA for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile, and I am one of the Opposition representatives on the Internal Economy Commission. For the record, I would like it to be known that I have played no role, whatsoever, in any discussions that took place at the IEC involving this issue, as a result of some correspondence that I was a party to, while I was Minister of Justice in the last Administration. So, based upon that information, I decided early on that it would not be appropriate for me to play any role and be party to any discussions concerning this issue, and that is not withstanding some comments, I understand, that were made in the public media this morning by Mr. March. I would like to confirm for this House, and for the record, that I have not played any role in the discussions of any information or evidence of the IEC in this matter. I will not be making any comments here in the House concerning this resolution or any amendments thereto and I will be abstaining from any votes in relation to same.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair acknowledges the comments made by the Opposition House Leader and confirms them as Chair of the IEC.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to speak to the amendment. Clearly, I am having some difficulty with the process here and the fact that you have the Citizens' Representative who was hired by the House of Assembly, that I would like to think that the person who does the hiring also does the firing, if that is, in fact, what is to happen here. My position on this, of course, is that I do not think I have enough information as one of the Members of the House of Assembly to make that decision. I know that there has been information that has been passed along, and I know what happened at the IEC based on comments from the representative of the Opposition on the IEC, but having said that, as one Member of the House of Assembly, I really would like to have an opportunity to hear from Mr. March, himself.

I think it is only right and proper that an individual who is being looked at as someone who has, obviously, done something that would warrant having him removed from this particular position, then should also have the opportunity to speak to the House of Assembly. I understand that he was invited to speak to the IEC and he chose not to do that, but that is his right. I think that if anyone's reputation is at stake, their job is at stake, then I think, as Members of the House of Assembly who did the hiring, that we should, in fact, have Mr. March here and be able to hear from him exactly what it is, what transpired to lead to this chain of events.

I know that Mr. March has a good reputation in this Province in terms of his involvement with the labour union over the years, and I guess at some point in time people do things that they probably regret having done. I do not know, I do not know what the situation is here. I know that I have had an opportunity to look at some material, but, again, the individual who was involved in making that presentation, when we talked about it, there was nothing there black and white. There were so many grey areas. I think I came away with more questions than I had answers. To be honest with you, I think the problem I am having with this is that I would like an opportunity to have Mr. March come and speak to the accusations or the allegations and to determine whether or not they are in fact right, or to get his take on what transpired and have a chance for him to speak to them because I think that is important. I think that is only right and proper.

I think anyone who is being taken to task over something, or some issue, or something they have done, or something that is alleged to have been done, really should have the right to speak to that and to defend him or herself. In this case, of course, it would be Mr. March having the opportunity to defend himself in the House of Assembly, defend himself in front of the people who, in fact, hired him. That is how the process worked in terms of the hiring, and I am a little confused about the process in terms of the firing - or the suspension, I should say, because of course, to date, Mr. March has just been suspended from his role as Citizens' Representative and suspended with pay, I understand. I have some difficulty with the whole process. I understand, too, that if, in fact, the House is not sitting and something like this arises, then the IEC can make a recommendation to Cabinet. If it is an urgent matter, then of course Cabinet can move. I fail to see the urgency of this issue, given that it has dragged on for some time. Why it could not wait until the House of Assembly sat for the decision to be taken by those of us, again, who hire the Citizens' Representative, I am having some difficulty with that aspect of it as well.

I also have difficulty with the government, in fact, bringing forward a resolution and not speaking to it. I would have assumed that -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: That is fine, I say to the House Leader.

My difficulty was, in terms of the resolution being raised here, for me to get up and speak to it I would have liked to have heard from the government in terms of what they saw as the rationale or the reason for suspending Mr. March and hence, firing, if it came to that, in a vote in the House of Assembly.

No, Government House Leader, you can get up. I am here now speaking my twenty minutes, whatever I have on this issue, if you do not mind. At the end of the day this, for me, is an issue of doing what is right and proper with respect to Mr. March. It is due process. It is what should have transpired. What has not transpired to date - you know, the fact that again the IEC, the recommendation of Cabinet, Cabinet making the decision to suspend Mr. March with pay, but we, in fact, in this House of Assembly, have an obligation to this person. No matter who is in the role - and I am not standing here to defend Mr. March, or to say what he did was right or wrong.

I do not have enough information to stand here today to tell you that what he did is wrong, or that he should be absolved, or that he should be allowed to stay for the length of term; I think it is another two years to go in the position. That is what I need. I need those answers, and I think those answers should come from Mr. March. I think Mr. March should be given that opportunity, no matter what the government members are going to say with respect to this issue, or the Government House Leader is going to say with respect to this issue.

It would have been nice, before I had to stand to introduce an amendment, to have heard from the government in terms of what they saw as a rationale here. That did not happen. That is why I stood and introduced the amendment. Now that I am here, I am saying, okay, if I did not get the information from the government, it is important, I think, even with that information, to have a chance to get Mr. March's version of what transpired here, whether or not he feels he is being hard done by, and why he feels that way, if he thinks that, in fact, he should be allowed to continue in the position. Then we would all in this House of Assembly have heard from the individual himself, what has transpired, and why he feels the action that is been suggested here is something that should not take place.

I think that is only right, that anybody whose job is on the line, whose reputation is on the line, should, in fact, have the opportunity to do that. I understand that is what he has been asking for. I do not understand why that is such a hard request to bring into the House and to agree to. Obviously, he feels that what is being suggested here in terms of what he did that would lead to his dismissal from a role that he has taken very seriously, and a position that we all take very seriously - in fact, it was the previous government, the Liberal government, that put in place this particular position, one that we supported wholeheartedly. In fact, we all supported Mr. March going into that position, because it was all voted on again in the House of Assembly, because we did the hiring. It was an Officer of the House of Assembly.

Whether or not he has done something now to suggest that he should be removed from that office, I really do not know. I do not have that level of comfort to make a decision that, yes, we should now let Mr. March go and look at putting someone else in the position. It is only Mr. March, I think - and that is what I would put forward, Mr. Speaker, that it is Mr. March - who can tell us exactly what it is that has led to today and led to this part of the process being one where we are now questioning whether or not what we are doing here is right - or at least some of us are questioning whether what is happening here is, in fact, right.

This person has asked to appear before the House of Assembly. Why would we not agree to that? Why would we not agree to set aside some time for Mr. March to appear before the House of Assembly, since we are his employer? That is only right. Isn't that what you would do with any individual in any other place of business or any other environment where you have an individual who feels they are being hard done by or that they are not being treated with the respect that they deserve - or any company, any corporation, any organization - would you not give an individual that opportunity to be heard? That is all he is asking.

Whether, at the end of the day, what Mr. March has to say carries any weight in terms of whether or not he continues in that position, or whether or not we agree that he should be let go, that remains to be seen, but at least he would have been given that opportunity. Those of us sitting in the House of Assembly who have a responsibility to hear what he has to say will know that the decisions we are making are being made as informed decisions. That is the difficulty I am having today, as one of forty-eight Members of the House of Assembly; I do not feel that I have the information I need to make a decision here that, at the end of the day, I feel that I can, in fact, defend. I think that is what is important here. When you make a decision, you have to be able to defend that decision.

As I said earlier, what I have seen to date, there is no black or white there. There are issues surrounding a number of matters that have been brought forward, but everything is kind of second-hand and, in some cases, third-hand. I do not ever pride myself on making decisions coming from hearsay. I need to hear first-hand, supposing it means it is going to take a bit more time, that we are going to have to spend more time looking at things in-depth, it is going to take a little more research or, in this case, it is going to take hearing from Mr. March himself.

That is what I am asking today with this amendment: that, in fact, Mr. March be given that opportunity to appear before the House of Assembly so that all of us, when we make a decision, can defend that decision based on having first-hand knowledge about what transpired, and having Mr. March explain. If there is something that happened that we have difficulty with - things happen. Things happen all the time. Maybe there is a good explanation for something. I do not know. Again, I do not have access to the information; information that I need to make a conscientious decision. People can defend what they have done. I mean people do things and in hindsight say: I shouldn't have done that. I do not know. I do not know how damning the things that he has done are. I do not know enough. I do not know if it is something that he did and he regrets. I do not know if there is someway he can compensate for what he did.

There are just so many questions I have about all of this. But, I do know that Fraser March, as an individual, certainly with his involvement in the labour movement over the years, has given a lot to this Province, and I am not saying that he should or should not be let go from this most important position. I think I would like to hear from him, his thoughts on what has transpired here and why it has gotten to this point. What possibly happened to bring it to this point? With an individual appointed to this position of such importance to the Province, to the people of the Province, a position put in place by the House of Assembly, what transpired? What brought it to this point where a gentleman will be removed from that position and not allowed to complete, I think it is two more years of the term of office? I think as a Member of the House of Assembly, as one person involved in his hiring, that I would like to hear from Mr. March about what happened here. Why it is that we are at this point, with this particular position and this particular individual.

I am not standing here defending Mr. March or suggesting he has been hard done by, other than to say I would like to have the opportunity, as one person of forty-eight who hired him, to ask him myself, or a committee of the House, or whomever, but some representation from this House of Assembly to get the facts from Mr. March himself, rather than getting things second-hand, and in some cases, third hand. We know what happens when things get said - from one person to another, to another, things can become distorted along the way. That is the issue I have with this. It is much better I think, and I think all of us would have to agree, it is much better for all of us to hear firsthand from the person who is being impacted here so that - and it is only right. It is only right that that person have that opportunity. At the end of the day, if the result is such that, you know, he is removed from that most important position in the Province, then sobeit, but at least due process will have been served. At least we can have that level of comfort in knowing that we did everything that we should have done, as employers, to make sure that whatever decision is made is the right decision.

That is where I am coming from today with this amendment to the resolution. That is where I am coming from in terms of saying let's do the right thing here, and we can. As Members of the House of Assembly we can do the right thing. There is nothing stopping us from doing that. There is nothing stopping us from bringing Mr. March to the House of Assembly or having a committee of the House of Assembly interview Mr. March. But, at the end of the day, if I were asked to vote on this resolution now, I could not do it with a clear conscience. I could not do it based on the information I have and I do not think I have enough information to make an informed decision, and that is bottom line here, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you so much.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say right up front, I mean, this is obviously a serious matter before the House. I do want to make it clear that this is not a government motion. This motion was brought forward after about a year of considerable discussion, and it was brought forward in my role as Government House Leader, and as Government House Leader I sit on the IEC.

Now, it is important for people to understand - who may be watching the debate today - what IEC stands for. It stands for Internal Economy Commission. But, what it really is and essentially is, that it is a committee of the House, I say to the Member for Grand Bank. It is a committee that is comprised of two representatives from the Official Opposition. Represented - the Speaker is the Chair of that committee. The Deputy Speaker is the Vice-Chair, and myself, in my role as Government House Leader, sit on that, as does the Opposition House Leader, in his role as Opposition House Leader. That committee deals with all matters related to matters of the House of Assembly and what is in the jurisdiction of the House of Assembly. That includes, for example, the Auditor General. That includes the Chief Electoral Officer. That includes the Child and Youth Advocate, and it also includes the Citizens' Advocate.

So, obviously, the concerns that have led us to where we are today emanated from the Auditor General's report. Now, I take exception to the member, as a member of the Internal Economy Commission, not a member of government, because the resolution that came forward today was a unanimous decision made at the IEC by members on the IEC, which included representatives from the Official Opposition, not the NDP. The NDP are not members of the IEC, because, I think, they need, according to the rules, three parliamentary seats to have a seat there. So, my comments are to the IEC and the membership, and decisions that were made were taken in an unanimous way.

First of all, the Member for Grand Bank has indicated that all she has is second-hand information, third-hand information and really what amounts to hearsay. I take exception to that. The IEC, and members of it, struggled with the issue that is before us and how best to deal with it; how, not only to be seen to have done a piece of due diligence, but also to actually have done it, to ensure that due process was served.

Members of the IEC have grave concerns of the findings in the Auditor General's report. I am speaking to the facts of what occurred. This is not a government -

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I raise this point of order - it is related to the procedure that we are involved in right now. We have a motion from the Government House Leader. He says in his capacity as a member of the Internal Economy Commission, but looking at - and I have done some research in preparation for this because I am quite concerned, as is the Member for Grand Bank, and I am sure other members, as to the procedure that we are undertaking here dealing with an Officer of this House. We do not have anything before us except this bare motion. We do not have any report. We do not have any evidence. We do not have anything to go on other than whatever is in the public domain.

Looking at the House of Commons procedure and practice, Marlow and Montpetit, which this House has been using, page 885, in dealing with committees and presentation to the House. It says, "It is not in order for Members to allude to committee proceedings or evidence in the House until the committee has presented its report to the House. This restriction applies both to references made by Members in debate and during Oral Question Period."

Now, we have a committee, an Internal Economy Commission, which I regard as an administrative committee of the House, which has considered the matter and made a recommendation to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, who has acted upon it. Now we have a motion before this House with no report, no evidence, no documentation, no findings; a bare motion. The member - and I am not trying to shut him up other than to say if he would follow the rules, fine. But, the rules seem to be that whatever went on in the Internal Economy Commission he cannot use that to justify this motion if we do not have a report from the Internal Economy Commission saying that here are our findings. We found this fact or that fact, or this other fact or some other fact and here was the procedure that we used. In the absence of that, I think this debate can't go very far, because someone has to try and justify an allegation in this motion which says: WHEREAS there is cause to terminate or to remove the Citizens' Representative as an officer of this House. Someone has to justify it. If they can only do it by evidence that was somehow discussed or presented or considered by this committee, well we have to know what findings the committee made, because I understand there are significant disagreements about the facts, let alone the conclusions, let alone the weight to be given to them, between the Auditor General and Mr. March and others.

I just raise that as a point of order, because it will certainly affect the debate. People have referred already to certain things that happened. The Member for Grand Bank said that she knows some things, some of them are second or third-hand. Is this the kind of decision we are going to be making here today based on second and third-hand information, when there is no report to this House, apparently serious enough for the Government House Leader to come here and say that there is cause to terminate him.

I have a great deal of difficulty with this, Mr. Speaker, and I raise it as a point of order based on Marleau and Montpetit. I don't think we can talk about what evidence the committee had unless we know, from a report from this committee, what the evidence was, what the conclusions were, what the procedure was that was followed, something to justify this motion before the House today.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I always listen intently when members make a point of order, particularly when we are on important subjects, matters before the House. I am not going to engage in debate, only to say this: That we have known for some time, all members in this House have known for some time, that this motion was coming forward.

I appreciate the concerns raised by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and, Mr. Speaker, in that regard, I am going to take those concerns, as a member of the IEC. I want to be very clear on this. As a member of the Internal Economy Commission, I think we should take those concerns for what they are worth. We normally meet when the session is open. I know today is Monday and we normally meet Wednesday morning. I think we should refer this matter to the IEC to meet Wednesday morning.

If there are people who have fundamental differences on process, I have no intention of trying to ride roughshod or to try to not deal with a matter of importance, but I will say this to the member, and to members opposite, the process that was defined was explained to everybody in this House, dating back eight or nine months. This issue, and the issues dealt with by Mr. March - or with respect to Mr. March - members in this House should have been advised. I know that the Leader of the NDP was advised at many points, Mr. Speaker, by yourself, in your role as Chair. Members of the Official Opposition who were part of the decision making on this process should have advised their own caucuses. I know that I advised my caucus in terms of where we were.

Fair enough, if members have an objection in terms of information not being out there, then, Mr. Speaker, I am going to refer this to the IEC for a suggested Wednesday morning meeting, but I will say to members that, before this House adjourns this session, this motion will be dealt with, one way or the other - it has to be - but, I do not have any difficulty whatsoever in delaying that, if there are objections or suggestions that may be made for the IEC to deal with. Fair enough. If members have those objections or suggestions that they wish to make, then I advise them accordingly that, the sooner you can do that, the better off we all would be.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to move to Order -

Oh, I am sorry. You can rule on the point of order first, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again to the point of order, in response to the Government House Leader, the point of order is raised in terms of what can be referred to in debate in this House. The Government House Leader can move to other business while this is being considered by Your Honour, but let me say that what went on in the Internal Economy Commission, I was not there. We are not a party to it, as the Government House Leader has pointed out. If he is suggesting that somehow we were party to it because I was advised by you of things that took place throughout, I think that just sort of compounds the problem. I should say, for the record, that when I was advised of certain procedures taking place I objected to the process. I indicated that I did not believe that the process was the right one, but that is just for the record.

What I am saying here today is that the Internal Economy Commission played a role here, a strong role, and I do not think we can proceed on the basis that what went on in the Internal Economy Commission we all know about somehow or other through being advised by our caucuses or whatever, and somehow we are going to make a public decision about that, most of which or all of which went on behind closed doors. It is not proper. If the Internal Economy Commission can produce a report that we can consider, then I guess the House has to consider a report, but right now we do not have a report. I do not propose to join an Internal Economy Commission, behind closed doors, to try and sort things out. If the Internal Economy Commission has a report which recommends the termination of an officer of this House, then we should have that report - what conclusions, what findings they made. It is not enough to say, we got a legal opportunity. If we want to get into that we can, but my point of order - I think it still stands to be answered at some point - what is it we are going to be able to talk about here? Because, if we are going to talk about a legal opinion, I will have some comments about that because I think I have an idea what that is all about; but, if we are going to talk about conclusions that were reached by the Internal Economy Commission, we should have them on the Table by means of a report from the IEC.

MR. SPEAKER: Are there further commentaries on the point of order?

The Chair will take the matter under advisement, keeping in mind, I remind all hon. members, that the Commission of Internal Economy is a Commission and may not fit with the word committee as we have designated here on page 85 of Marleau and Montpetit. With that in mind, the Chair will endeavour to arrange a committee meeting of the Internal Economy Commission at the earliest convenience, in consultation with the members who sit on the Commission. I will refer the matter back now to the hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I believe it is Order 8, if I am not mistaken, to move to second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act, Bill 66, to be introduced by my colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 66, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act." (Bill 66)

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

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

I am pleased this afternoon to speak about an amendment of the Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act. This amendment will provide our Province with the authority to sue the tobacco industry for the recovery of health care costs associated with tobacco related wrongs directed towards individuals who have received government health services.

The Newfoundland and Labrador act is modelled on legislation that is currently in place in the Province of British Columbia. Nova Scotia has also recently introduced similar legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on November 12, 1998, in British Columbia, the tobacco damages in Health Care Costs Recovery Act was brought into force. The act gave the Province of British Columbia the authority to sue the tobacco industry for the recovery of health care costs. On the very same day, British Columbia commenced an action in the British Columbia courts against tobacco manufacturers. The manufacturers challenged the constitutionality of the British Columbia legislation on three main grounds: extraterritoriality in the potential application to persons outside of the Province; violation of the rule of law; and, interference with judicial independence. The British Columbia court held that the legislation was constitutionally valid in all respects expect in regard to it extraterritorial reach.

British Columbia responded by repealing the legislation and passing a new act in the year 2000, and this new act addressed the specific criticisms that the court had raised. The 2000 act was also challenged by the tobacco manufacturers. It was found unconstitutional by the British Columbia Supreme Court, again on grounds that it had extraterritorial reach. The British Columbia Court of Appeal disagreed and, on appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the legislation was held to be constitutional.

On May 24, 2001, this Province and this Legislature passed the Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act, which has yet to be proclaimed. The model is based upon the British Columbia legislation, but it differs in one minor way. It differs in that it does not expressly state that a tobacco related wrong means a breach of a common law, an equitable or statutory duty or obligation owed by a manufacturer to persons in the Province - and I emphasis the words: in the Province.

A review of the legislative record does not reveal why Newfoundland departed from B.C.'s language in this definition but, in light of the emphasis that the courts have placed on the extraterritorial application, it is considered appropriate to expressly state that the duty is owed to persons in the Province, in conformity with the B.C. legislation, in order to avoid potential challenges by tobacco manufacturers which could delay this Province's litigation to recover health care costs associated with tobacco related illness. This is the basis for the recommendation before the House today, to insert the words "in the Province" in section 2(m) of the legislation.

In proceeding to court to sue tobacco manufacturers for such tobacco related wrongs, B.C. already defended, as I mentioned, two separate court proceedings by tobacco manufacturers that challenged the constitutionality of the act. As I said, fortunately, on appeal, the constitutionality of the legislation has been confirmed now by the highest court in the land. In a decision that was released on September 29 of this year, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitution validity of the legislation on all grounds. This Province intervened with British Columbia and other provinces before the Supreme Court of Canada.

The proposed amended to the definition: tobacco related wrong, in section 2(m), adopts a language incorporated in the B.C. legislation of a tobacco related wrong by inclusion of the words ‘in the province' thereby expressly stating that a: " ‘tobacco related wrong means' - as I said previously - a breach of a common law, equitable or statutory duty or obligation owed by a manufacturer to persons in the province who have been exposed or might become exposed to a tobacco product." It is accordingly considered appropriate, Mr. Speaker, to introduce this amendment to expressly adopt the language employed in the British Columbia legislation, in light of the repeated challenges faced by British Columbia and the recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling upholding this provision.

I should mention, Mr. Speaker, that in October, 2002, the government of the day engaged litigation counsel Humphrey, Farrington, McClain and Edgar of Independence, Missouri, the home of the late President, Harry Truman, to conduct the litigation following the outcome on the constitutionality of the legislation. I recently met with Mr. Ken McClain and, I understand, the firm is ready to proceed and that local counsel will be engaged so that this could happen.

I would urge all members to support this so that we can now proceed to recover the costs from the tobacco companies rather than from the taxpayers of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words concerning this amendment to the Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act. This started first, of course, back in 1999. I believe it was Premier Tobin who made the comments during the Provincial General Election of January-February, 1999 saying that it would, certainly, be prudent and nice if this Province could, as they do in the United States, find some way to sue tobacco companies and recover some costs we incur in our health care system as a result of people who use tobacco. That is where it started.

I, personally, had my first meeting with the B.C. solicitors in December, 1999, and that is where we got on to drafting the piece of legislation we had here, and, as the minister refers to, we did, in fact, run into a big, big roadblock back there in 2000 because the B.C. legislation was put to their court. The tobacco manufacturers challenged it and it was winding its way through the court process ever since. It was sent back, I do believe, by the B. C. Court of Appeal on one occasion, redrafted, sent out again, challenged again, and the court, in that case, the second time around, upheld it. It found its way, ultimately, to the Supreme Court of Canada. Meanwhile, we felt it was most appropriate in this Province to at least draft our legislation, and even if we had to leave it on the shelf until we heard from the Supreme Court of Canada, at least we would be ready to go when the Supreme Court made their decision and assuming they would, ultimately, uphold the validity of that piece of legislation.

This was, in fact, patterned after the B.C. legislation. I am pleased to see that the Supreme Court of Canada did, indeed, at the end of the day, and after several years of going down the legal trail, approve the legislation. We now have a proper, legitimate, legal framework in order to commence our action. In fact, I was waiting, I say to the minister, to see when the proclamation would take place because it is a piece of legislation that was near and dear to myself. I saw it started. I would like to see it finished and I would encourage government to, in fact, see it through, because I do believe, at the end of the day, this decision could be as valuable to this Province as the Atlantic Accord. If this case winds itself through the court, and based upon the statistical information that I have heard in terms of recovery to this Province, it could, indeed, be a very lucrative and beneficial pot of money at the end of the day, justifiably so, to offset the health care costs that we, in this Province, incur as a result of people who smoke. So, I do encourage government to get on with the amendment that is needed as they feel it and then get on with the proclamation.

I must say, as well, kudos, I guess, to the former Administration again. I thought it was appropriate at the time, and I still think it is appropriate, that you do not need to invent the wheel. In this case, we did not try to invent another wheel, for example, how to sue tobacco manufacturers. We followed the B.C. pattern, which I think was appropriate. It saved a lot of money. It saved a lot of time and effort. If someone else got it and it works and it is good, sure, we should make use of it here. That is why I also felt at the time, and I still feel, that bringing in the professionals from the United States in the legal field who have already done this, the McLean Company, to which the minister refers, in Independence, Missouri, who I happened to meet with and, in fact, first engaged to come here to help us in the ultimate litigation of our case, are well versed in litigation of this magnitude. We are taking on a defendant here who have very, very deep pockets, who will do whatever it takes to win this case. I think it is prudent of us, rather than go it alone and challenge a case of this magnitude and not necessarily have all the legal expertise here, that we have engaged somebody who has done it. These people have done it. In fact, they were one of the law firms that was part of the American consortium of law firms that sued. There was, I believe, $136 billion settlement by the tobacco companies back several years ago.

I would, at this point - and I will make the comment again later when we get into committee stage and we address the particulars, but I will mention it to the minister now in case somebody might want to get some information available so that we can be properly informed when we do debate on the detail stage. I notice here that the amendment the minister is putting forward is basically adding the words ‘in the Province' to the existing legislation. I just query whether or not that is in fact being too restrictive, because does ‘in the Province' or will ‘in the Province' then be taken to be only those parties who currently live in the Province? I think that would be very, very restrictive because we may have 20,000 people who were residents of this Province, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, who are no longer - technically, at the time of the commencement of the act - living in this Province, but the cost to our health care system that was incurred as a result of them smoking may have well been incurred by them and by our Province while they were residents of the Province.

For example, the person who lived in Corner Brook who has now taken a job in Alberta, does that mean that when our lawyers sit down to prepare our case that we have to rule out these people because they are no longer in the Province? I would suggest, if that could possibly be interpreted that way and be negative for our case, if there is anything possible in terms of an amendment here to suggest that it should be ‘in the Province or at any time resided in the Province' so that we catch all of these people.

We have to realize here that when we prepare this case now on a go-forward basis, now that we know we have the framework within which to sue, there are going to be actuaries involved, statisticians involved to determine: What are the costs? It is fine to say you can sue and it is find to say you have a cause of action, but if you ever get to the point where a judge says to you: Okay, what are your damages? You have to be able to justify, this is the amount of money we want. You calculate the amount of money, of course, based upon the facts that you have and the statistics. So, let's not rule out by this amendment ‘in the Province' all of those thousands of people whom we may have been able to include in our case but cannot now because we have tied our hands by saying: in the Province.

Our costs that we have had into our health care system is not only on a go-forward basis, we want to sue for the costs that our health care system has had historically. Now, fortunately, putting those statistics together from an actuarial point of view and a statistics point of view, we have a big advantage over a place like B.C. Not only do we have a smaller population, which makes the numbers of people that you are dealing with and the number of dollars you are dealing with smaller, but we have had a fairly homogeneous type of population here in Newfoundland and Labrador. So, it is much easier to trace it and get that information then it would be in B.C., for example, where there is more diversity, culturally, than it would be in a place like Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, I say to the minister, I have no problem with whatever is needed to be done, from a housekeeping perspective, to make this piece of legislation the best that it should be, by all means, and we will be absolutely supportive of it, but I have grave concerns about inserting the words, ‘in the Province', if it becomes a hammer that the tobacco manufacturers beat us with. If anything, we will make sure that it is as broad as we can, to include everybody we possibly can, to recover as much as we possibly can, because every penny we can squeeze out of the tobacco companies is going to come to the betterment of this Province and to provide the people of this Province better health care, so be it. I say to the minister, go for it, but I think you need to amend this further. If it is not necessary, I would appreciate it if someone in the Department of Justice might be able to explain to me why it is not necessary. But if it is necessary, we would certainly be agreeable to proposing the appropriate amendment.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this legislation, Bill 66, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

As the previous speaker indicated, this bill was modelled on the work of the British Columbia government who initiated this procedure to make legislative changes to permit the suing of these companies to recover the costs of health care. I might add, on a partisan note, that it was an NDP Government of British Columbia that we were following the lead of in terms of modeling our act and legislation and who engaged the process of passing legislation having it vetted by the British Columbia Court of Appeal - having it vetted, not directly I suppose, but by being challenged - and then remodelling their legislation. We have, as the minister indicated, held off to allow them to go through that process rather than reinventing the wheel, legislatively speaking, and we are now in a position where the Supreme Court of Canada has vindicated the last round of amendments so that these litigations can go forward.

I want to say, I support the efforts of government to continue this action. It is legitimate to require the people who have been producing this toxic substance that is addictive in nature, that has been ruining the health of young and old, I suppose, in Newfoundland and Labrador and the rest of North America for many years. Now, as the markets in North America seem to be closing down, to some extent, by significant campaigns to try to end smoking and end smoking addiction and help those who are addicted to quit and to make it basically safer for people who do not smoke to be in public places, work places, et cetera, the market is lowering down for these companies who are now working on expanding their markets in Asia and China and seeking to promote their products elsewhere. They are just as poisonous, Mr. Speaker, just as toxic, but nevertheless, this has not stopped these companies pursuing the profits that they are obtaining from the sale of this addictive and toxic product. So, I do support it.

As the technical question raised by the former Attorney General, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, the Opposition House Leader, these are something that I would urge the minister to deal with when he closes the debate. It is an important issue in this Province. Health care costs are significant. I am told - and maybe the Minister of Health, if he is going to speak, can correct me - something in the order of 800 deaths in Newfoundland related to smoking each year. The minister is nodding his head. I remembered that in the back of my mind somewhere. That is a lot of people who are dying as a result of the use of a product that was poisonous and addictive.

I remember as a child - I smoked, I guess, when I was twelve or thirteen. We knew we were not supposed to do it, but we did not know it was poison. We did not know it was toxic. We did not know that in a number of years time it was going to be banned from workplaces because it was a toxic substance. It is very addictive, particularly to young people who think that they are being cool by having a cigarette, or at least they did and maybe now it is not so cool.

One of the things that we noticed when we were having these debates in the House about ten years ago when the products marketing act were being discussed and we were trying to work on removing the likelihood of children smoking, one of the things we found out by having hearings in this House and from witnesses was that one of the fastest growing market segments for the tobacco companies was, in fact, young girls. While males were slowing down with their smoking habits, they were actually targeting young girls, creating an impression that cigarettes, somehow, were slimming agents, that they assisted people in controlling their weight, that they were actually great weight reduction products, or at least creating an image in people's minds to that effect. I think that is an indication, when you see the statistics showing the number of young people smoking, particularly young women smoking, on the rise, how insidious the work of the tobacco companies has been in addicting young people and older people to cigarette smoking, obviously endangering their health and incurring significant costs in our Province.

I would say, on the technical side, whether in the province means residing in the Province now or residing in the past, there are probably all kinds of examples of people who may have grown up in Newfoundland and Labrador, got addicted here by starting smoking when they were teenagers, went away to work for twenty years and then came back to live in Newfoundland and Labrador for their retirement, ended up getting cancer, and the Province incurring health costs as a result of that. Are they in the Province ? This is an open question here. Are they in the Province, in the meaning of the tobacco related wrong? Does the wrong have to be committed in the Province, and what is the wrong? Is it the one that got them addicted in the first place? Is it the fact that the medical expenses were incurred here? I presume the minister has some response to that.

The last question I hope that the minister will address when he rises to close debate, or someone on behalf of the government, there seems to be the suggestion by the minister in the final remarks that he made that the government would be engaging outside counsel to handle this litigation. I do not know if that was part of his speech or he just sort of said at the end they are planning to engage outside counsel.

There have been outside counsels engaged in the past, and I believe the decision was made at some point not to use outside counsel because of the significant cost involved. Perhaps the minister can address that when he closes debate, that this is important litigation and has a potential for going on for a long time. These suits in the United States went on for a long time, lots of ups and downs and ins and outs, eventually resulting in settlements of significant nature. Why would the government choose to use outside counsel for something that could prove to be extremely expensive? I think at one time the previous government talked about doing it on a contingency fee so that the government would get a share but the law firms involved would get a share as well, a significant share.

It seems to me to be legislation that is facilitating a lawsuit that ultimately must be successful, given the track records of what goes on in the United States and what is going on between the Supreme Court of Canada and the Legislature of British Columbia in fashioning by B.C., for example, an effective legal regime to allow a suit to take place and to say to a law firm: Here is what we are going to do, folks. We are going to make sure this lawsuit succeeds. We are going to pass whatever legislation is required to make it succeed. You do the legal work, collect the money, and you can get a cut of it.

Why wouldn't the government say: Look, this is a government suit; we have government lawyers. If we need to hire a couple of more to do it, surely it can be done at a cost that is a lot less than giving a piece of the action.

I do not know how big a piece he is talking about. Even if you are talking about 15 per cent, 20 per cent or 25 per cent - I do not know what contingency fees the government is negotiating for this - it seems to me that government, in a situation where the chances of recovery seem to be quite high, the only issue here may be the amount of recovery and what the damages might be, isn't this something that the government ought to be doing, in fact, on its own, as opposed to letting a law firm take a big chunk of the action instead of the government hiring a couple of people, if necessary, to undertake this work and to achieve what is best for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador through this action.

I hope he will address that when he closes. I know he did not place a lot of emphasis on that in his remarks. He was talking more about the principles and purposes of litigation, which we support fully, but I have a bit of a problem suggesting that this should be put out to a contingency fee arrangement when you have a situation where what is really happening is the guarantee is there in a sense that the government is going to ensure the success through appropriate legislation, and we have the ability, a staff of legal experts, lawyers and advocates on hand. If they are inadequate in the sense that they are so busy at other things that more are needed, well, we are in a position, presumably, to hire more to undertake this work.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we support the legislation and support the efforts of government to recover these health care costs.

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

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

I would certainly like to thank the Opposition House Leader and the Leader of the New Democratic Party for their comments here today.

With respect to comments made by the Opposition House Leader as to the inclusion of the words, in the Province, it has been the advice given to the government that, in view of the emphasis that the courts have placed on the extraterritorial application, it was considered appropriate to expressly state that the duty is owed the persons in the Province, which is in conformity with the B.C. legislation, for the purposes of avoiding any potential challenges by the tobacco manufacturers which could delay Newfoundland and Labrador's litigation to recover health care costs that are associated with tobacco related illness.

I will certainly be happy to have the lawyers in the department have a meeting with the hon. Opposition House Leader in order to address in more detail the concerns that he has raised.

With respect to the comments made by the Leader of the New Democratic Party concerning the government's counsel in pursuing this legislation through the courts, an agreement was entered into between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the previous Administration, and the firm of Humphrey, Farrington and McClain, an American law firm from Independence, Missouri. As I said in my previous remarks, Independence, Missouri, was the home of the late President of the United States, Mr. Harry Truman.

A contract was entered into, an agreement has been entered into, with this American law firm by the previous government, which this government continues with, that will allow this firm to represent the Province and to pursue the costs on an contingency basis. What I indicated in my remarks was that, that American law firm, of course, has retained the services of a local law firm in order to commence the action in our local courts because, obviously, the action will commence in the courts of this Province.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their comments and I would urge all hon. members to support the passage of second reading.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 66, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery 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 Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act. (Bill 66)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 66 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.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 66)

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

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

Order 9, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Public Service Commission Act. (Bill 67)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 67, An Act To Amend The Public Service Commission Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act to Amend The Public Service Commission Act." (Bill 67)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a fairly straightforward piece of legislation, as you would be personally aware, and certainly the offices of the House of Assembly. This bill essentially corrects what I believe to be somewhat of an error in how we deal with our own employees.

Right now, employees of the House of Assembly, particularly in the Legislative Library and in Hansard, are prohibited from applying for any other positions within the public service. This is really a strange anomaly, to be honest with you. What this act does, really, is corrects, in my view, the situation that currently exists that should not exist. We are not talking about political staff, we are not talking about staff related to members, in our duties as members, but we are talking about public servants, in essence, who have served the Province, who have served the House of Assembly, but, for whatever reason, were prohibited from applying for other public sector jobs within the Public Service Commission.

With that, Mr. Speaker, we have put forward a piece of legislation under the name of the Minister of Finance who is responsible for the Public Service Commission, to correct that anomaly and that error, and we believe right a wrong, if I can put it that way. That really is the spirit and intent of Bill 67, An Act To Amend The Public Service Commission Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand today and respond to Bill 67, An Act To Amend The Public Service Commission Act. I guess this is going to be a bit of a change for public service employees, being able to apply for jobs that they were not able to in the past.

I was looking at the Public Service Commission annual report for 2003-2004 and it was quite alarming actually. I meant to bring it up earlier in the House but this is probably a time to do this.

As we know, over the past two years there has been considerable downsizing to the Public Service Commission, and because of that downsizing there have been a lot of requests coming from the Employee Assistance Program. That is a program that is set up for employees who have difficulty carrying out their jobs because of internal stresses and a number of issues in relation to policy changes and so on. As we know, over the past two years, there has been considerable upheaval. It started, I guess, with the strike by NAPE and it continued on with the downsizing of our depots around the Province. It permeated into all areas of government, every government department was under review.

The alarming stat that is coming out of this report by the Public Service Commission is the fact they are saying that an increasing number of managers are seeking the Employee Assistance Program. In 2003-2004, 19 per cent of the total management group, approximately 400 managers throughout every department of government, sought the services of the Employee Assistance Program. That is a very telling remark, or finding, that was made by the Public Service Commission staff. The Public Service Commission is chaired by Sheila Devine, the Commissioner, and Harold Marshall, the Vice-Chair. When I read that I was kind of alarmed to see that, and I can understand now some of the reason for this particular bill coming forward.

Job security is a big issue within the Public Service Commission, and it also had the complete realignment of the Public Service Commission over the past couple of years. It always fell under the purview of Treasury Board, but right now Treasury Board does not exist and there is a commissioner who looks after the Public Service Commission. What we are hearing from the Public Service Commission is that many managers report difficulty managing with fewer resources. This is their own publication. This is not something that I have taken out of The Telegram or taken out of a newspaper around the Province or heard on the media. This is something that is coming out of the Public Service Commission's own material that they presented to the House of Assembly. It says: Many managers report difficulty managing with fewer resources, and significantly in balancing work and family. Employees and managers reporting a growing preoccupation related to the uncertainties of workforce adjustment

We heard today a conflicting report, I guess, in essence, because when the Premier was questioned today by the Member for Labrador West concerning pay equity for the women in this Province, we were all pleased to see the Premier stand on his feet and give a report to this House of Assembly saying that he would undertake to appoint a Committee of Cabinet to look into the matter of pay equity and whether or not it could be addressed. He said that they would certainly not be able to look at the issue of $300 million nor would they look at the issue of $100 million. What he did say was, he would appoint a committee of Cabinet to look into the issue of pay equity.

That is a complete reversal in a decision as compared to the Minister of Finance, because when the Minister of Finance gave his report in November regarding the update on the financial workings of the Province, he was interviewed by NTV and CBC right in the Lobby of the Confederation Building, this building, and he said under no conditions would it be in the purview of this government to address that wrong at this particular time or well into the future, because this government had a lot of needs, social needs and other needs, and he could not entertain pay equity. He was quite glum about the whole matter. Today, December 5, the Premier did a complete turnaround. It is either that the Premier operates on his own or he did not consult with the Finance Minister. I guess, the end result, if we know that the women of this Province are going to be looked after when it comes to pay equity, I believe it will be a good thing. With regards to ruffling internal feathers, that does not make any difference.

The findings of the Public Service Commission, they went on to say: The public service requires a government-wide healthy workplace strategy, and this approach would ensure strategic planning on policies and practices, would include long-term strategy on work adjustment which would mitigate the negative impacts resulting from sudden staff reductions, and restructuring within departments and agencies. We are experiencing that all over government departments, and even in my own District of Grand Falls-Buchans. You know, there has been this quiet erosion of staff all over our Province who work with government. Even our own Labour Standards Officer in Grand Falls-Windsor, who had been there for thirty-four years service with the Crown, he was on sick leave for twelve months prior to last year recovering from surgery. We learned this spring, that position would not be replaced in Grand Falls-Windsor but would be consolidated as one of the positions here in St. John's within this government.

You say: That is only one position, what difference does that make? You know, every government position that is out there, whether it be provincial or federal, makes a lot of difference, because every one of those positions add up. You only have to ask the people who were working with the highways department. When their minister decided to cut down the highway depots and just have winter maintenance, and they were laid off for the summer, that made a huge difference.

I can feel it in my district in Grand Falls-Buchans, the highway depot in Northern Arm. All of the impacts of government's actions - you look at the mill in Grand Falls-Windsor. Since the announcement was made about Grand Falls I have not seen any commercial activity for new construction this summer, and in Grand Falls-Windsor we have been a beehive of activity. Over the past ten years we have been leading the charge when it comes to commercial and residential housing and new construction. Once we got that word this spring regarding our mill, it was as if a wet blanket, an umbrella, a black umbrella, was placed over the whole area. How can you expect business to go ahead and make investments when the future seems uncertain? I was surprised today that the newest member who gave his inaugural speech today, the Member for Exploits, made no mention of our mill, the lifeline of the economy that looks after all of Central Newfoundland.

However, when you look at the report that was put out by the Public Service Commission it is alarming. It is time for government to sit back and say what they their own departments are saying. When you have 400 managers, covering every department of government, who are phoning up and making an appointment to see an employee assistance specialist, that tells you a lot of things. It tells you that there are a lot of internal stresses going on within this government. There seems to be no rhyme or reason. We are hearing that every riding, every district, is losing people, so I was not surprised when I saw government's own literature where they said that 20,000 people will leave this Province over the next ten years.

Within government we have a workforce, when everybody is working, of roughly about 40,000 people. Now, if someone were to tell me today what the number of people is who are working for government, I am sure that the figures would be a whole lot less. We have a lot of jobs that have been scaled back to temporary and a lot of jobs that have been scaled back to seasonal. We are seeing that, we are not getting the maintenance on our highways that we had in the past. You cannot bring people in for a few days and expect them to have everything ready to go, who haven't been around all summer taking care of the work. If managers are finding the crunch in their workplace, it has to be reflected.

I mentioned the other day to the Minister of Finance, that the Auditor General has already made a comment two years in a row, and that would be concerning the errors in estimation of departmental budgets that are coming from every department of government. In 2004, the first year this new government reported to the Auditor General, there was $40 million in errors, and last year there was $80 million in errors coming from departments. It matches, doesn't it, because if you don't have enough people working in departments to carry the load and to perform the service, there is something wrong.

There is something wrong when I happen to get a driver's license coming to my address when I didn't even request one. I had a separate new driver's license come to me in the mail last spring and I never asked for a driver's license. It came in handy, although I didn't ask for it, because I had to apply for a passport a month or so ago and they wanted a piece of identification, and all of the sudden something dawned on me. I said: Gee, I have a spare driver's license. The provincial Government of Newfoundland sent me an extra one, which I didn't ask for and I didn't pay for but I have got an extra piece of identification. I said: Gee, I don't need to send in my original driver's license, I can use the spare one that the government sent me.

These are the kinds of things that are happening within government. When there are less people working and there is more stress in the workplace, there have to be errors, because you can't expect people to do two or three jobs instead of the one they are supposed to be doing. I don't know if those who sit on the government side realize the erosion of morale and goodwill in the public service, because this is what is happening. There are less people to do the work and there are more people seeking employee assistance services.

It is a big step for an employee to actually pick up the phone, inquire and say, I really need the help of the employee assistance program. Most people are trying to fight whatever issues come their way, and when they finally give up and say, I cannot deal with this issue any more, there is too much stress - 400 managers within government last year, 400 new people in the management section of government, asked for help to do their work. It would be interesting to see what this report - now, the next one that comes out probably will not say anything because it is being highlighted by myself today, and government does not like bad news. It is the commissioner's job to point out what is happening within the Public Service Commission.

By bringing about this new piece of legislation today, Bill 67, the bill would amend the Public Service Commission Act to extend its application to certain employees of the House of Assembly and the statutory offices of the House of Assembly.

Now, I hope this will not be just a place to have patronage appointments fill jobs; because, in our reign as the government before 2003, there was a rule that came forward that people could not double-dip to get jobs in the Public Service Commission. Unless there was an identified and proven shortage of that particular skill set, that was the only way a person could double-dip.

I do not know if this means that people who worked at the House of Assembly, like ourselves, Members of the House of Assembly, for those who leave the House of Assembly, whether by choice or if they want to get out of it, if they will have a chance to apply for any of these jobs in the Public Service Commission or not. I do not know if this means this or not. It says that the bill would revise Schedule A of the act and that certain employees of the House of Assembly and the statutory offices of the House of Assembly will be able to extend its application. I do not know if this means that people who would normally not have an opportunity to apply for jobs within the Public Service Commission will now have a chance.

I notice that not all Crown agencies are mentioned here. I was just wondering about the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Commission. That seems to be a favourite of placing jobs whenever there is a change of government - we have seen that lately - but I notice that particular agency has not been mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, this particular Bill 67, An Act To Amend The Public Service Commission Act needs attention. In fact, the whole Public Service Commission needs attention. There needs to be more attention paid to the Public Service Commission. Right now, they do not have the same authority that they had in the past. At one time, they could review all of the hirings within government. One of the criticisms by the Public Service Commission is to say that there are too many temporary positions under thirteen weeks, where government has all the latitude, and the Public Service Commission does not have any control and does not have any authority to go in and see who was actually hired. This is an area where a lot of political patronage appointments can be done, a lot of hirings can be made under a political banner, and there is no way to check it up. For a government who has written their book, their blue book, on accountability and transparency, this is one area that certainly needs checking.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks at this point.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER (Mr. Fitzgerald): Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say a few words on Bill 67 in second reading, An Act To Amend The Public Service Commission Act.

This legislation provides an opportunity for people who are employed in the House of Assembly staff - and, when I say that, the non-political staff, people who might work in the Chief Electoral Office, the Legislative Library, for example, people who are working in the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, the Child and Youth Advocate, Citizens' Representative, et cetera, the Auditor General's office - to ensure that they have the right to apply for jobs in the public service and qualify as internal applicants. I think that is basically the principle here, that they would be considered internal applicants within the public service for the sake of being able to apply for openings that exist.

I think we have seen anomalies in the past, just by virtue of the fact of how some of these offices and staff were created; whereby the Auditor General's staff, for example, was previously included by virtue of the fact that they had come initially out of the Department of Finance before it was created as a separate office as an officer of this House. The Auditor General, himself or herself, of course, would not qualify under this legislation, but someone working in the Auditor General's office, either as an accountant or a clerical position or managerial position, administrative support staff or whatever, if they saw a chance for advancement or a different job available within the public sector, they would have the right to apply.

I think this is a positive step, to pass this legislation. It clears up some confusion in some cases, and misunderstanding in others, but also some of the anomalies that I just talked about where the Auditor General's office traditionally was included as part of the public service but the employees of the Chief Electoral Officer were not, or someone employed by the Citizens' Representative as an administrative person would not have the ability, for example, to apply for a job in the public service.

These are the kinds of offices that come out of, or are considered as part of, the House of Assembly establishment. There are certain other agencies as well that are part of government structure that can also be included as people who are operating in departments, under the Executive Council Act, for example, departments of government. They are part of the public service, obviously, so the argument goes: Why shouldn't people who are employed in other aspects of the public service, like the House of Assembly, who are performing public duties on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in the area of the House of Assembly staff, why shouldn't they have similar opportunities?

Now, I guess there are arguments against it, I suppose. You could say that the House of Assembly should be a separate entity totally, and that the staff of the House of Assembly should not have any rights to be participating in the public service as a whole, but, given that we have a relatively small group of staff in any event, most of them consider themselves public servants and perform duties very similar to those in the public service. It is not an issue of using it as a way to curry political favour of one sort or another so that political appointees can actually get into the public service if they wish. This is allowing individuals who already work in the public service, in general, by working for the Legislative Library, the Chief Electoral Office or some other office that might be attached to the House of Assembly by virtue of legislation, being allowed to have some flexibility in terms of their career path within the public service.

I suppose it also performs another function, Mr. Speaker, in that it allows people who are in the public service now, in what is regarded as the public service, by the Public Service Commission Act currently, it allows them to move into jobs within the House of Assembly establishment, knowing that they will still be considered public servants and be able to move back into other jobs, in other aspects of the public service, should the occasion arise. It also, therefore, gives the House of Assembly establishment greater access to personnel from the general public service because they would be more willing to take these jobs knowing that they would not be foregoing an opportunity to continue their careers in other aspects of the public service.

So, I will not call it a housekeeping bill because it is probably more important than that, but it does remove certain anomalies that exist now between people employed by the House of Assembly and its agencies and offices, and the rest of the public sector. Therefore, we support the legislation, Mr. Speaker, here at second reading for approval in principle.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not going to belabour this, but I have a couple of questions for the minister - if he would like to pay attention - that concerns the political staff that is referred to in this bill. What I want to know is, if they fall under the Public Service Commission Act, what impact that might have on the union or the public service contract? I would like for him to answer this because these employees are not in management positions. I am just wondering, if they fall under this act, if they will be permitted to bump within the public service?

The other thing is, if these individuals - and I am talking about political staff, I say to the House Leader. We, as MHAs right now, are considered to be the employer, I would think, and that we could allow that employee to go at our discretion. Would that change under this act?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not get to hear all the question, but I think what he indicated - correct me if I am wrong - is that - did you say any other staff, like political staff or non-political staff?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it does not include any political staff; absolutely not included in this. It is non-political staff. They are in Hansard, the Legislative Library. They could be in any of the groups of government out there. I guess the Chief Electorate Office or all these groups here. They would have the same opportunity as somebody working in a government department. They are hired here politically - I guess they go through the Clerk in conjunction with the Public Service Commission. They are the same as - they do not have any of these rights now and therefore it gives them an opportunity that everybody else has. It is not political staff. They are absolutely removed from that. They are strictly at the prerogative of the political leaders. The Leader of the NDP, who he has in their office, or the Leader of the Opposition who is in their office. I guess they are on the government's side, who is in the government members' office there. So, they are separate. It is not included under this and the amendment is just to bring these other non-political people in and give them the same rights and privileges as people now enjoy under the Public Service Commission Act.

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

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

I move second reading of Bill 67.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill, Bill 67, 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 Commission Act. (Bill 67)

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 today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Commission Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 67)

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

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

Order 11, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act. (Bill 72)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is moved and seconded that Bill 72, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act." (Bill 72)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the House will recall, I guess, that in December, 2004, there were extensive amendments made to the Fish Inspection Act. These amendments were made to strengthen the Province's enforcement mechanisms under the act. They were made to modernize the act and to clarify certain aspects that had been sources of confusion in the act over the years, and it also provided authority for quality assurance incentives and increase the accountability of fish buyers and processors under the act.

The amended act, Mr. Speaker, enabled the department to develop progressive enforcement measures, from tickets to administrative penalties for relatively minor offences, to substantial fines and licence suspensions and cancellations for the most serious offences.

During 2005, Mr. Speaker, the department has been engaged in a detailed review of the fish inspection regulations with a view to modernizing, clarifying and strengthening them. One aspect of this review, Mr. Speaker, has focused on the development of ticketing and administer the penalty provisions. It was during the review that certain deficiencies in the amended act became apparent and were identified, which need to be addressed, and these deficiencies that need to be addressed are the subject matter of Bill 72.

Generally, Mr. Speaker, these include the amendments, as I say, that are contained in Bill 72. There is provision for lesser fines for ticketable offences. Currently, the act would require a minimum ticket of $5,000. There is clarification that tickets may not be appealed to the minister. That is rather important. I do not think it would serve much of a purpose if an inspector gave a ticket under the act for some breach of the act and then there was a right to appeal that to the minister. As minister, I would not want to be sitting on that and I am sure the former minister did not. And, clarification that administrative penalties may be applied for violations of the regulations, as well as violation of the act itself.

Mr. Speaker, we are aiming to further strengthen the Fish Inspection Act and further give credence to the fish processing policy review. The report reviewed the regulatory framework for fish processing and recommended, in general, that enforcement activities be enhanced and that improvements be made to the quality assurance program.

Under increased enforcement measures, Mr. Speaker, offenders will face more severe consequences, and hopefully this will act as a better deterrent and improved compliance. Furthermore, the Dunne report, as the House will recall, concluded that the quality assurance program was increasing the value of our fishery by at least $40 million a year.

Mr. Speaker, with improved enforcement, the Province will be better able to enforce quality control regulations. This is important to our industry and it is for this reason, therefore, that we are offering those amendments to the Fish Inspection Act that are contained in Bill 72.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move second reading.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is basically a housekeeping bill, I take it, Minister, and we really don't have any problem with it. He mentioned about taking the right to appeal to the minister out of the bill. I am just wondering - maybe you can answer later - that if there was a genuine case for an appeal, who would they go to in a case like that?

AN HON. MEMBER: The court.

MR. REID: The court, okay.

With regard to quality enhancement and having inspectors there to ensure that the quality of fish products that are going into the U.S. and other markets around the world is improved, I certainly would encourage the minister to even hire more inspectors with regard to that. We listened earlier this year to the previous minister get up and talk about the need for, I think, the Raw Material Sharing. When he was talking about the Raw Material Sharing process he talked about the quality of fish going into the United States this year and how it was of such poor quality, as if he were trying to blame that on somebody else.

When I was Minister of Fisheries, it is easy to determine, when you go to the marketplace, for example, where the poor quality is coming from, because every box of fish in this Province is stamped with the name of the company from which it comes. I think it would even go so far as that the processor himself could track it right back to the boat from whence the crab came and the date that it was landed, went through the plant, and so on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Yes. What I am saying is, rather that besmirch the character of the entire industry, albeit it all of the processors in the Province, by saying that the quality of fish in this Province is poor, I think that the minister had it in his own hands to be able to go back and ask the individuals in the United States where the poor quality fish was coming from and deal with that individual processor, rather than making a blanket statement that the quality of fish, the quality of crab, going into the United States was of such poor quality that it was actually driving the price down this year.

I would encourage the current minister to keep a vigilant eye, and an ear, on what is happening in the industry, and if he can detect from either his inspectors or from the market in the United States that there is a problem with the quality, that you nip that in the bud, you go directly to the processor who is causing the problem and maybe give him a warning and, if it continues, then certainly pull the license from that processor. It is such a valuable commodity to the people of this Province that we can't take chances anybody with getting a bad name in the industry.

I know that three years ago, when I was Minister of Fisheries, I met with, I think it was the Vice President of SYSCO, which is the largest seafood buyer in the United States. They are the people who deliver fish products to all the institutions and restaurants, and they told me at the time that the quality of crab from Canada - because they call it Canada rather than Newfoundland and Labrador - was indeed improving, and that some problems they had experienced in previous years were overcome and we were certainly moving in the right direction, and they had no problem purchasing our crab. They knew, in fact they could tell you, the individual processors they were having the problem with.

I say to the minister, rather than make blanket statements like your predecessor made last winter about the quality of the product in the United States, go and talk to that individual processor and if you have had problems with them in the past do not talk to him any longer; pull his licence. I am sure that the Member for Bonavista North, when he heard the minister say that, I am certain that he was not, in his mind, thinking that the quality of the product coming from Bonavista North, in Wesleyville, Beothic Fisheries, was of such poor quality that they had to be concerned about it. I am certain that the Fogo Island Co-op certainly did not put bad product into the marketplace. So, if the minister is talking about adding more inspectors and giving them more rights and privileges to get out there and actually keep a more watchful eye on what is happening in the industry, we have no problem with that.

I think the minister talked about lowering some fines, because the minimum fine was $5,000. I am a bit reluctant, actually, to see any fines lowered, because I know for a fact that one processor here in the Province was processing without a licence in another province and he was being fined $1,000 a day. That was a joke in the industry at the time, because a fine of $1,000 a day was what was referred to in the industry as the cost of doing business. They were certainly making far more than $1,000 a day, and they did not mind paying a $1,000 fine, if that is all they were going to get, because they could continue with their business and continue to make a fair dollar at the end of the day.

I remember when the Minister of Fisheries for Nova Scotia came bragging to me that they were fining this individual $1,000 a day. I said: Boy, they are laughing at you in Newfoundland and Labrador because they know now they can operate without a licence in your province, get fined $1,000 a day, but yet make a very handsome profit at the end of that day.

He was not very pleased when he heard that, so we have to be careful, I say to the minister, about reducing the amount of a fine. I say, Minister, be careful when you reduce fines because, as you know, a lot of processors would call a $5,000 fine the cost of doing business and continue doing what they were doing before the penalty was served.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, with that I will sit down and I will listen to the minister in the next reading.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 72, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act, provides for some improvements in the ability of government to enforce the fish inspection regulations. The quality of fish in this Province is important to everyone in the Province.

First of all, clearly, there is a direct relationship between fish quality and price, and there has been a continuing effort over the many years, not just in the last few years, to try and improve the quality of fish, I guess, starting with the issues that were part of our ancient history, the quality of made fish that was dried and often culled by the fish merchant, downgraded in some cases, and the different grades of fish sent to different markets and obtaining, obviously, very different prices. The better the quality of the fish, whether made fish or fresh fish or frozen fish, obviously, the better price is going to be obtained, so to make sure we have a proper system for the inspection of fish and for fish leaving the Province, depending on its quality, is extremely important.

I, too, was quite concerned last year when I heard the former Minister of Fisheries use some complaints about certain fish to essentially throw a blame on the entire industry in the Province, no doubt affecting the market itself. When the Minister of Fisheries of a Province is, himself, criticizing the quality of fish being exported from the Province as if it were a general problem, it certainly did not help matters at all. To be using that in a political context where he was under some considerable pressure because of plans that had been made without proper consultation with those affected by his decisions on resource sharing was, in fact, very detrimental to the best interests of the Province.

Fish and fish quality inspection, I know there are always going to be some issues because we do have people catching a number of different species, for example; there is by-catch. Not all the fish is going to get to the market in the same condition, or get to the processors in the same condition, but when we have a lot of trucking going on, with a long distance of trucking before fish even gets processed, we do have, obviously, significant problems with fish quality.

The better regime that we have in terms of allowing fish inspectors to do their job, the better quality we are going to have on the overall, and the better returns there are going to be to the fish harvesters, and obviously the industry in general is going to benefit from a better price structure and a firmer price structure and more desirability of our products. The consistency demanded by the markets that we have today, and the consistency that is going to be demanded by markets which will pay more for higher quality fish depends on a strong regime for inspection. If these improvements do anything to help that, then that is good for the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Deputy Premier.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their contribution to the debate.

As members have said, this is housekeeping, generally speaking. We have no intention, as a department or as a government, of weakening the Quality Assurance Program in any way. In fact, if it is possible to make it better, the intention would be to make it better. It is in all of our interests that the highest possible quality of product go out of this Province because it adds to our reputation as a quality producer and it adds to our bottom line when we send out quality product.

With those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

I ask the Clerk if she would give second reading of Bill 72.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act. (Bill 72)

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 today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 72)

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

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

Order 6, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act. (Bill 63)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 63, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act." (Bill 63)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Memorial University is a critically important institution in the economic and social development of this Province. The university employs thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. As well, over its eighty year history, the university has served to attract many people to this Province. These professors and other professionals have become important permanent members of our community. Memorial is governed by the Memorial University Act, and its operations are guided by other pieces of complementary legislation, including the Memorial University Pensions Act, which governs the university's pension plan.

The Memorial University Pension Plan is a separately funded plan operated by the university. It offers a defined benefit package similar to that covering the provincial public service. The plan is defined under the Pension Benefits Act Regulations 1997 PBA as a public sector pension plan. The Board of Regents, Memorial's governing body, has recently approved several amendments to the Act intended to address a number of outstanding issues with respect to the management of the plan. These changes are necessary as certain issues and circumstances pertaining to pensions at Memorial have arisen that require clarification and codifying through amendments to the Act. For example, there are currently seven separately incorporated entities at Memorial of which only the Memorial University Recreation Complex, known as MURC, the Botanical Gardens and C-CORE participate in the plan.

The Memorial University Recreation Complex was created through the amalgamation of a number of university units including the Aquarena, whose employees had been employees of the City of St. John's and participants in the cities pension plan prior to the facility's transfer to Memorial University in 1995. The desire is now to create enabling legislation which will facilitate the transfer of pensionable service of those employees to the Memorial University Pension Plan. C-Core and the Botanical Gardens have some employees currently participating in the plan.

It is the desire of the university, with the concurrence of those entities, that separate pension arrangements be maintained for those employees who do not participate in the plan and for new hires. To accommodate the wishes of these separate entities Memorial is proposing that the Act be amended to include all employees of Memorial University Recreation Complex and only employees of C-Core and Botanical Gardens who participate in the plan at the date of amendment.

The other four separately incorporated entities, the Canadian Centre for Marine Communications, the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation, the Genesis Group Incorporated and the Newfoundland Quarterly do not participate in the plan as they have established separate pension arrangements for their employees.

The university also wishes to formally extend its pension plan to its contractual employees, improve upon pension affordability and reciprocity with other pension plans and make other improvements that require amendments to the Act.

The purpose is to strengthen the Memorial University Pensions Act by adding provisions that will bring into the university pension plan other employees of Memorial and that will enable the university to be more competitive in recruitment by structuring its pension plan in a manner that is consistent with plans of similar organizations throughout the country. The amendments proposed will: number one, provide for the participation in the Memorial University Pension Plan of identified employees working in specific, separately incorporated entities of Memorial University; number two, provide for the transfer of pensionable service from the City of St. John's Pension Plan to the Memorial University Pension Plan for those employees affected; three, provide for formal recognition of eligible contractual employees in the Memorial University Pension Plan; four, provide for a more flexible, reciprocal transfer provision similar to that of the Public Service Pensions Act and the Teachers' Pensions Act; five, provide for incoming portability on an actuarial basis similar to that of the Public Service Pensions Act; and six, repeal certain provisions of the Act dealing with the rounding and capping of pensionable service, that because of regulation changes are no longer relevant. These changes will make for a more flexible and responsible Memorial University Pension Plan. There are no anticipated financial costs associated with these changes for either the plan members, the University or government.

Mr. Speaker, a stronger Memorial University Pensions Act means a stronger Memorial University with a unified workforce and a competitive advantage in attracting the qualified personnel who deliver high quality university education and ground-breaking research to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand today to respond to Bill 63, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act, that was just introduced by the Minister of Education.

What this act does is actually carry out the request of the employees and the management of Memorial University. It is not a controversial piece of legislation. It is, basically, carrying out the wishes of this particular group of people. Of course, Memorial University has the luxury of having their pension 100 per cent funded unlike some of the pensions that government is responsible for in this Province.

The ability of being able to encompass several different entities that currently now are employed by Memorial University provides more opportunity for those employees to have stability in a pension plan rather than have it out in left field as is currently happening. It also gives employees more security when they look ahead and wonder whether or not their pension fund will be there for them at the end of their retirement years.

Right now, of course, Memorial University is able to draw in and recruit specialists and different professionals from all over the world, because one, they have an eighty-year history of being an excellent education institution within Canada, within our Province, and throughout the world. By solidifying their pension plan, it makes it more interesting for those who may want to work for Memorial University to be able to transfer their pension plans from different entities around the country.

However, I would suggest that government might look at opening up those reciprocal agreements, because in the past I have heard from different people throughout Canada who wanted to come to Newfoundland and Labrador to go to work here, and because their pensions could not be transferred to our Province to entities within our provincial government, it discouraged them and their spouses from transferring.

Of course, we live in a world today where most families are two-income earners, so if you have a situation where a husband and wife cannot have a reciprocal agreement between two provinces that would ensure the portability of their pensions, we are not going to be able to draw in those types of professionals. I believe that from time to time we need to expand that particular group and make sure that we have an expanded base where we can draw in those professionals.

Today people are more mobile, because you see people moving around all over the country. One time if you got a job with government you stayed in that particular job and that was it until you retired. We are finding today that people are on the move and they are moving from province to province, they are moving from country to country. We have to be more open as a government and be able to accommodate professionals in this regard.

It is going to be an improvement to the transferability from the City of St. John's. A lot of people are employed at a local municipal level and they oftentimes opt to get into a provincial job situation, and having the portability of being able to transfer a pension from the City of St. John's into the hub of government right here, throughout the provincial government in St. John's or anywhere, for that matter, throughout the Province, will mean a great opportunity for those seeking employment.

As I said from the outset, Mr. Speaker, this is not a controversial piece of legislation. This is an accommodation requested by employees of Memorial University and the government today is carrying out their wishes.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hope the previous speaker is right. Just looking at Bill 63 this afternoon having been distributed for second reading, Bill 63, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act, from the comments of the Minister of Education and from a review of the act, there appear to be a number of progressive provisions here allowing the university - in some cases prescribing that part-time employees, who are employed for what is called an indefinite period, are covered by the act, but also allowing part-time employees who may be just on a contract, or full-time employees on a short-term contract, to be included in the Pensions Act.

I think it is an important step forward to see that people who do not have long-term permanent jobs or full-time jobs do obtain pension benefits. We need to be moving toward that in other areas of society. We see an awful lot of part-time work. As someone said yesterday at a public forum on the oil boom, supposedly, that we are experiencing, there are lots of jobs around. Yes, said this woman, there are lots of new jobs around; I have three of them. She was working at three part-time jobs, obviously working at least close to full-time if not more than full-time, perhaps in this case a low wage, in order to support herself and her family, but - and the but is this - these jobs rarely, if ever, obtain any pension benefits or benefits of any kind. Some employers go to the extent of ensuring that they do not hire anybody beyond a certain number of hours of work per week in order to avoid the Labour Standards Act that provides benefits for people who are over a certain number of hours. That is the situation that we have existing in the private sector.

I am really delighted to see that the Memorial University Pensions Committee, which is composed of both employers representing the university and also representatives of the employees, whether it be the faculty association or the administrative support staff who are also unionized, or, I believe the third group is the security staff who are separately represented. So, there are at least three different employee groups represented here, and perhaps even a fourth who are the non-unionized staff, all of whom are participating in the MUN pension plan committee that advises on the rules and regulations.

I am pleased to see that provision is now being made for this type of involvement. I think perhaps it is a consequence of the university relying to a large degree on contractual staff to deliver courses. That is not necessarily something that is being lauded by MUNFA, the faculty group, because many individuals who are highly qualified are unable to get appointments to the university to teach in a particular faculty or department but are used as sessionals to teach a course, or two courses, or three courses, at a much lower rate of pay than would be obtained by someone with a tenure-track appointment in a particular department.

Now, there is always a need for some flexibility with respect to that, but it seems that this university has gone very far away in a particular direction to have a lot of sessional staff rather than appointing tenure-track positions. That is something that I do not know all the details on, but I have heard - you hear complaints from time to time, particularly about young doctoral graduates with doctoral degrees not being able to get appointments; yet, the university has a great need for teaching staff because they have, I think, at last count, something in the order of 18,500 students.

I have taken a particular interest in the university over the years, Mr. Speaker. It is a great university. I am very proud to have been a graduate of that university, and I am glad to see that they are trying to ensure, from the pension side at least, that even if they are hiring more sessional staff than they should, at least they are giving them, or at least they are providing for giving them, access to the pension plan.

I will note, though, and this is something that I had to discover by cross-referencing back and forth from one section to the other, there are at least three or four categories here of employees. There is the full-time permanent, people with definite hires as they call them. There is the part-time permanent. There is the full-time short term, full-time contractual, and then there is the part-time contractual. Those provisions for part-time contractual - in other words, fixed term, or even full-time for fixed term, are set out here in Clause 8, a policy directive. This is actually giving permission to the board, subject to the approval of the minister - I guess it is the Minister of Education, but maybe it is the Minister of Finance because it is a pension bill - to include, by a policy directive, that full-time fixed-term contracts - and this is basically someone who is hired for a semester or for a year or for six months - that they can be included by virtue of a policy directive.

You have to go to Section 29 because it is very unclear when, in Clause 3 it says - or Clause 1 on page 5 of the bill says - the act applies to full-time people who are permanent employees, full-time people who are employed by the Memorial University Recreation Complex, and full-time people who are employed for an indefinite term by a related not-for-profit employer. That would be, I guess, one of the institutes or research institutes associated with the university, or perhaps the Marine Lab if they are separately constituted.

Then we have something which is called, "(d) a person directed by the board to be included in the pension plan under subsection 29.1(2); and (e) the person appointed by the board or by an employer referred to in paragraph (b) or (c), who is employed on a less than full-time basis for an indefinite period as directed by the board and approved by the minister."

These are not automatically included, I say to hon. members. These are something subject to approval of the minister, directed by the board, et cetera, et cetera, so it is not happening yet unless the board is ready to make these directives immediately to include these part-time or contractual staff in the pension plan immediately.

I think it is a positive step forward and, as the minister said, we are actually giving effect to the desires of the pension committee to have some more flexibility and ability to include these people and to roll their service in from other jobs that they may have had with the City of St. John's or elsewhere. I think that is a positive thing.

The other thing that has been said about the Memorial University Pension Plan is that it is 100 per cent funded, it is fully funded, and there is a reason for that, Mr. Speaker. The reason is that, as the pension was being built up, the employer actually made the contributions on their side. They took contributions from employees, whatever percentage was prescribed at the time, 4 per cent, 5 per cent, 6 per cent, and the employer matched those contributions by putting in their share on an actuarially sound basis over the years, with some exceptions. They have taken pension holidays. They have taken contribution holidays, very controversial a few years ago, but they have taken contribution holidays when the plan was still actuarially sound, but they put their contributions in so we do not have a situation that we have with some of the government pension plans that are directly managed by the Department of Finance because governments of the past did not make the contribution, matching the contribution made by employees taken from their cheques. That is the reason that we find ourselves in the situation that we have today where the plans are underfunded because government did not put in the funding that they should have along the way. These are, as I have said on many occasions, long-term structural problems over those plans that require long-term solutions. They do not require the Minister of Finance to go around yelling about the sky falling in because we have four point something billion dollars in unfunded pension liability, a factor that changes from time to time, Mr. Speaker, and I suspect it is going to change for the better because of the rising interest rates that we see happening today.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, we support these amendments to the Memorial University Pensions Act. I will say that they are fairly technical amendments and we have not really had time to look at them in great detail here, but I think any move that is going to make a pension portability stronger in this Province is a good one. We really should have a stronger portability of pensions regime in this Province so that people who may work for one employer for two years, five years, tens years or twelve years and then gets another job, does not lose their pension benefits and is somehow able to carry them around with them. That should happen between the public and private sector as well. We really should be spending some time, as a government, trying to develop a public policy that ensures that happens.

I will say one more thing about the MUN pension fund, along with all of our pension funds, have considerable assets. I think the last time I looked there was about $2.5 billion, maybe closing in on $3 billion, in assets in these pensions, that most of which is invested, based on the Trustees Act, which often requires that they have to go to the highest, safest return. Often, and I would say for the most part, these pension funds are almost entirely invested outside of the Province. There may well be some municipal bonds, there may be some investments in the Province, but most of this capital is invested outside of the Province.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is time that we started looking at the investment policies of our pension plans to ensure that the shortage of capital, that is a real problem in this Province for development and other activities, and sometimes entrepreneurial activities, is not available, and yet, we have closing in on $3 billion in public pension funds being invested outside of the Province and being used to create wealth elsewhere and to support economic activities and development elsewhere.

I think this government, through its pension plans, even owns condominiums in British Columbia. We have a separate property corporation that buys condominiums and multi-unit residential operations in other provinces, which may be a good investment, Mr. Speaker, but we have to look at the need for capital for development and economic activity in this Province as well. I know the Minister of Finance probably likes this idea. He has not done anything about it yet -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) that is not our decision.

MR. HARRIS: Well, the minister is trying to wash his hands of these decisions. What I am saying to the minister, if he had a progressive policy -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: The minister says it is not his money, but let me tell the minister that the people of Quebec and the Government of Quebec does its level best to ensure that these long-term capital savings that are held for the pensioners of Quebec are used, in large measure, to enhance the availability of capital in Quebec for economic activity there. If they can do it, Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why we cannot look at a policy, look at a way of making sure that a proportion, at least, of our savings, of the capital, is used to encourage and support economic activity and development here. It is a shame, Mr. Speaker, to see all that money and all that capital being used to support economic growth and development in other provinces, to buy condominiums in British Columbia, to invest in property elsewhere, but yet we have - as many people in the private sector will tell you - a crying need for capital in this Province, and that is something that I think is important. Government can set policy on all sorts of things. In fact, according to this bill, the minister has the authority to approve, or not approve, policy directives that might be undertaken by the Board of Regents at Memorial University or the pensions committee in order to enhance the pension at Memorial University.

It is an important policy matter, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister of Finance wants to wash his hands of it, that is his business, but to say it is not our money is wrong. It is, collectively, our money because that money that goes into the pension fund, half of that money should be coming from the people of the Province to support these pension plans and half of that money is supposed to be coming from employees to contribute to their long-term pension plans and pension entitlements. So, it is our money, Mr. Speaker. We are required to put it there. The fact that previous governments did not put it there is one of the reasons why the minister is able to go around talking about the sky falling down about unfunded pension liability. If the minister had a plan to solve that problem that he keeps telling us about but he has not delivered yet, then we might have some willingness to see whether he has the problem fixed. We are anxiously awaiting to hear the minister's solution to this problem that he keeps referring to but has not yet come up with a solution for.

Having said all of that, Mr. Speaker, we are happy to support progressive amendments to the MUN pension plan act, or the Memorial University Pensions Act, and we hope that people who are employed part-time and under fixed term contracts or contractual employees, will have, as soon as possible, the benefits of pension entitlements that they should have.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I agree with the hon. member, actually, on a valid point. If there are opportunities to invest, it would be good to invest in our Province. I entirely agree with that, but this plan is a Memorial University plan that is not a part of our public plan, as the member is well aware.

Amendments here to move forward are positive amendments. I think they are supported - I believe supported by just about everybody. I did not hear any arguments to the contrary. On our own plan in here too, the point I was making is that it has been a severely underfunded plan. I did indicate I have proposals for Cabinet. There should be decisions very soon on some of the things pertaining to the overall, I guess, debt position in our Province.

There are some things that, obviously, we are concerned about, and the member has raised that. But, the plans here in government - all the respective, I guess, shareholders of that plan, which are the people who work for government, whether it is the Public Service Pension Plan or whether - I think there are six different groups represented in that plan, from NAPE, CUPE, the Nurses Union, Allied Health Professionals, the IBEW, and probably one more group represented overall in that particular plan. They sit on the board and decisions are made and you look at making investments.

When a plan has been such a low level of funding - and the people who manage that plan and oversee it have done a good job of getting a return. Return has been about 10.7 per cent since 1981, which is a pretty good return when you look out on the market today. It is about 80 per cent invested in equities out there, to try to get around - because it is such a low funding level, if you put it in the conservative investment, that would end up and grow at a slower pace and the Unfunded Liability would be way worse and there would be less money in it. So, it has gotten a very strong return over the past twenty-four years, we will say, going on twenty-five years, but there is a role played by all of these people who sit on the board representing stakeholders -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am talking about the general - PSPP, I mentioned the proponents there, no.

The Memorial plan is close to fully funded. I think it dipped down 4 per cent or 5 per cent, roughly. It was just about 100 per cent there, I think, about a year-and-a half ago or so. The latest count, it is probably down 4 per cent or 5 per cent roughly, I think.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It will. It will fluctuate I guess with the markets. How it is invested, the performance it gets. Also, based on the plan itself - if you increase your payments out of that plan, if you enrich it or index it or do other benefits, that will change its level if the performance does not make up for that. Those types of things are decisions that they make in the trustees of that plan.

So, overall, the points are very well taken. I think people who have money out there too - if you were getting a 10 per cent or a 10.8 per cent return on an investment and you may be able to invest somewhere in our Province that might get you a 5 per cent return, would the owners of that plan want to do that? Should that be? Maybe they might say: Well, it has been performing well where it is. Maybe we should not change direction on that. Maybe we should get a return back on it. Just like anybody who invests their own personal money. You or me, or anybody who wants to make an investment there. You could invest in a company or a province and get 5 per cent. You could invest outside and get 10 per cent. Which would you do? Would you get the return? They are personal decisions people would make, as well as ones that people who are responsible for those pension plans would make. They are general things.

It is a good point, well taken. We would like to see more investment in our Province, no doubt about it, from numerous sources, but they are made by the people who represent the plan. That is their members' money and they want to see a return on it. They have to try to balance that, hopefully, invest in our Province if they can and get a return, and try to balance that with a return to the people who have invested in that and want to maintain the integrity of that plan.

These are some of the decisions that are made. We do not make those decisions. People out in the field who are a lot more expert on this, I guess, certainly more than I am, are the people entrusted to make those decisions, and they get direction from the board made up of the stakeholders in those particular plans.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the Minister of Education speaks now, she will close the debate on Bill 63, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the hon. members for their input into this matter. Certainly, the amendments represent changes that are needed to address some outstanding issues with regard to the management of the pension plan at Memorial University.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I would like to move second reading of Bill 63, An Act To Amend Memorial University Pensions Act.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act. (Bill 63)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Later today.

MR. SPEAKER: Later today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 63)

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

MS THISTLE: Not too much later, I hope.

MR. E. BYRNE: Just for clarity why I laughed, some member said not too much later, I hope. I share in that hope, I say to the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

I guess we have about twenty minutes left before we recess for supper. We can introduce Order 10, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act. (Bill 70)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 70, An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act, be now read a second time.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

This is a fairly straightforward initiative with respect to An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act. Currently, the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador Advisory Council is established and they decide on application process on those outstanding Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have made such a contribution in their own personal lives on a variety of fronts, musically, culturally, medically, any contribution, outstanding volunteer service. This board really consists of the ability of those members to decide, through an application process, who has provided such a level of contribution and has made such an outstanding impact on the Province or in the place or region where they live, and deserving of merit to be recognized in such a way as the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador was an initiative of the former government and a very good one in my view, one that was long overdue. In many other jurisdictions around the country, once a number of people have received this designation or this order, at some point from the ranking file of those who have received the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador we would draw representatives from that group, that very select outstanding group, who would play a role in the decision-making process of how we move forward or who would be designated with respect to receiving the order based on an application process.

We feel, generally as government, that we have evolved to the point where now we have enough of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with a variety of backgrounds and experiences, who have received the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador, that from the order itself they can play a distinctive and critical role in deciding who would move into or who would get and who would be recognized by being presented with such an outstanding contribution.

The bill, Mr. Speaker, is very straightforward. It deals with that and that only. How it will be established in terms of the committee itself is read out in the bill, but I think it is important to recognize what this essentially means: that the Clerk of the Executive Council would be a member of the committee by virtue of his or her office.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: That is not new, no. Two individuals who are members of the Order shall be selected and appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council each for a term of three years. That is the point that I made just then. Not more than four individuals appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which is Cabinet, each for a term of three years.

Mr. Speaker, this is a change in terms of how the original board was set up from this point of view. Right now, the way the board is established is that two members who have received the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador will replace two other existing members. These existing members are the president of Memorial University and the Chief Justice. Our view and our understanding is that, when the bill was originally envisioned that at some point members of the Order would be part of the decision-making process.

I do want to say for the record here today, Mr. Speaker, that I do want to acknowledge and thank publicly, on behalf of the government, the contribution that the Chief Justice has made, and the President of Memorial University, in the establishment and the selection, I guess, of the order and recognize them for the contribution they have made in this regard.

With respect to a forward looking view, Mr. Speaker, we are looking forward to having members, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, who have been recognized for their outstanding contributions to public life and to the life of the Province generally, both in Newfoundland and Labrador, that members of that order will now move into the position of being able to help decide what other individuals should be recognized on a go-forward basis.

With that, Mr. Speaker, that is really the pith and substance of the legislation that is before us today.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (Mr. Hodder): The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a few words regarding this intended amendment to the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, I was very pleased and proud to be part of the government that brought in the order back in 2001. Notwithstanding some of the comments of the Government House Leader, I do not know what the intentions were on a go-forward basis, but we are certainly all well aware of how the advisory committee was established back then, and no doubt there were reasons why.

What concerns us somewhat over here is the motivations as to why we are leaving out certain people in this amendment. I have absolutely no difficulty whatsoever with the purpose of the Act. I think it is great, we needed it and we have it. As far as the committee, the advisory committee, who sits on it to choose the recipients of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador and what is happening here, I do have some concerns. My concerns are: Why are we dropping the Chief Justice of the Province and the President of Memorial University? I am in favour of an advisory committee that has a broad range of membership on it from people who are known to be impartial; absolutely. I would think the Chief Justice of Newfoundland, the current one at least - certainly any Chief Justice of this Province would be seen as being impartial. Maybe it is a problem that he happened to be a former Liberal premier, I do not know. I certainly hope that is not a question here - and the President of Memorial University.

We can accomplish what the government is suggesting they need to accomplish, i.e., have members who have already been chosen as members of the order play a role in future selections. That can definitely be done and this Opposition, I am sure, would be supportive of making any amendments that would include so many, two or whatever members, former appointees, under the order, as members of the advisory committee. I do not think that necessarily means that we ought to get rid of two people who I think, in and of themselves, because of their positions, are very prominent in this Province, who are known to be very credible, who are known, by virtue of their positions, to be very impartial - the Chief Justice and the President of Memorial University - and these individuals, by the nature, usually, of where they come from, and because of the positions that they hold, have such a vast knowledge of the academia of the Province, of the cultural significance and the role that different individuals in our Province have played in our culture. They have so many contacts. They are so involved in the community, whether it be the arts community or the cultural community. I think we are doing ourselves a disservice to exclude them from membership. I think it was well thought out to have these people as members of the Advisory Committee when this first became law. I do not see any reason why we need to exclude them.

I think we might have people out there saying that this is being politicized. We are going to have a situation where we had absolutely impartial people - we had three members - one was the Chief Justice of the Province, one was going to be the Clerk of the Executive Council, and one was going to be the President of Memorial University. Other than that, we had up to four more persons chosen by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. So, we would have a committee of seven people, of which the Lieutenant-Governor in Council would choose four, and it was already designated that the Chief Justice would be the Chair - again, I think, getting at the impartiality piece.

In other words, you can have all you want, and create all the rules you want, but we will have the very Chief Justice, who is the ultimate legal authority in this Province - to make sure that this honour is done absolutely on a impartial basis - the Chief Justice of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador will be the Chair of this committee. I think that was honourable, and a good, sensible way to do things, but what do we have here? We have an amendment which says, no. Scrap the Chief Justice of the Province. Scrap the President of Memorial University. We do not want them. We want two more political appointments chosen by the Premier.

The amendment says: It shall be the Clerk of the Executive Council, two individuals who are members of the Order who shall be selected and appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, and then four more members selected by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

What is the motivation here? There is no reason or justification whatsoever, in my view. First and foremost, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, right now, as the legislation exists, has it within their ambit to say that, of the four, two, three, or all four, if they wish, can be former members who have been honoured. So, that is the motivation. You need not go any further. You do not need an amendment. Pick the two that you want, or the four that you want, from members who have already been honoured.

I see here, I have a problem here. We have something that is a very honourable piece of legislation, I believe, in our Province. For God's sake, let's not politicize something that was intended to do nothing but honour the best of the best that we have in this Province to offer. What have we done? We have taken the impartiality that we had into it and we are totally politicizing it, absolutely politicizing it, and I think that is wrong.

I have no problem supporting any amendment of this government that is done for the purpose of making something better, or if it improves on something. I see no improvement here. We can accomplish what we want here, for example, to have the input of honourees. We can do that under the existing legislation. I have no problem even if you wanted to amend it to say create two more, make it a nine person council if you wish. Have four selected by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, put two honourees on there who have been selected, leave the Chief Justice there as the impartial arbiter, the Chairperson. Leave the President of Memorial University there. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that, but that is not what we have here. We do not have an improved piece of legislation. We have a piece of legislation here - and far be it for me to suggest what the motivations are. I do not know, because this is not housecleaning. This is housecleaning, okay; we are cleaning out the Chief Justice and we are cleaning out the President of Memorial University. I do not see the logic of it, and I do not understand the motivations of it. I think it is absolutely improper, it is absolutely wrong, and we are politicizing with this amendment one of the most worthy institutions that we have created in this Province.

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

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

It is 5:20 p.m. I know that other members wish to speak in the debate. I know that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, in the interest of time, we are going to recess the House in the absence of an adjournment motion, and we will return at 7:00 o'clock and go until 10:00 o'clock is my understanding of the rules.

Before that, Mr. Speaker, I do want to move Standing Order 11, that the House not close tomorrow at 5:30 p.m.; and, I do further move Standing Order 11, that the House not close at 10:00 p.m., if necessary.

With that, we can recess and return at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there agreement that we do now recess until 7:00 p.m.?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Agreement.

This House is recessed until 7:00 o'clock this evening.

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

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) I believe three sessions so far, or three inaugurations or investitures, if you want to call it that, of recipients of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador, and most recently, just a week or so ago. I have to say that the quality and calibre of the individuals nominated to the award are of the very highest order. I remarked on that to a number of people at the last occasion, Mr. Speaker. The individuals chosen were extremely deserving of the honour they received as being recipients of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. I was at the first investiture that took place at Government House, and I was at the one this month. They are of a terrifically great calibre and the recognition they receive by obtaining an Order of Newfoundland and Labrador is something that the standards that have been established by the Orders to date are ones that we should hope to continue and aspire to.

As the Order matures, Mr. Speaker, I think it makes sense to start making the process more self-sustaining, as it were. I do note, that aside from the three ex officio positions that currently exist in the Order - that of the President of the University, the Chief Justice of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Clerk of the Council - all of the members of the Advisory Committee are appointed by the Cabinet. The amendment now before us proposes to increase the number of advisors appointed by the Cabinet by two and take away the ex officio members. It is ironic, as well, that the third ex officio appointee is one that is actually appointed by the Cabinet as well, the Clerk of the Executive Council.

So, if this amendment were to pass, all of the people appointed to the Advisory Council would be now appointed by the Cabinet, which I am not sure this is the way we want to go right away. I like the idea of including people who are part of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador to be part of the process, that of course, as was indicated previously, can be done under the existing legislation. If the Cabinet chose all of its nominees from the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador recipients, it has the ability to do so.

The situation that exists right now, the Order is in its infancy, I think perhaps three years with eight or nine recipients each year having been appointed to the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. The last occasion we saw people such as Tim Borlase, the founder, and for many years, Director of the Labrador Creative Arts Festival, was one of the nominees. Shane O'Dea, who is a noted heritage building and architectural expert, who has done a tremendous amount of work to support the built heritage of our Province and to lecture about it, to help people learn about it, to encourage the preservation of it. We had Janet Story, a noted historian of the nursing profession. An archivist was also nominated. I am going from memory here, so I am trying to picture them. We had an equal number of men and women appointed this time recognizing their great talent and effort. Mrs. Susan Knight, the Founder and Director of the Newfoundland Symphony Youth Choir, now known as Shallaway, another one of their recipients. In other words, we have high caliber individuals recognized for their contribution to the Province. I think it is fair to say that we have a good thing going here with the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador and have established standards that are very high.

I would be reluctant at this early stage, Mr. Speaker, to change the nature of this and to leave out the two ex officio people who are not appointed by Cabinet - not that this is something that should not happen down the road, but we have established, just for a couple of years, this Order. We have established a very high standard and we have a need, I think, to retain a level of objectivity that is important to keep the standards of the Order high. I think it is also fair to say that the placement of the President of the University and the Chief Justice on this advisory board adds a certain measure of prestige, as well as objectivity, to the selection process and to the people who are selected themselves. So, I think it is very helpful, at this early stage, to have people from those offices, and we are not talking about the individuals themselves.

I know the previous speaker, the Opposition House Leader, made reference to the fact that the Chief Justice is a former Premier of a different party of Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, I do not think that is relevant, frankly. I think we are dealing with the Office of the Chief Justice and the Office of the President of Memorial University. Those are the offices that are mentioned in the existing legislation and those are the offices that are recognized, not the individuals who are there.

I should say, as well, Mr. Speaker, that the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador is something that we have established to recognize this contribution that exists across the country. All the provinces now, I believe, have orders or honours recognizing distinguished contributors to their respective provinces. I think we have a good thing going here and I would not like to see it potentially spoiled by the notion that all of the people are now appointed by Cabinet.

I would say one more thing, Mr. Speaker - despite the presence of these two individuals, the President of the University and the Chief Justice - I had an interesting chat the other day at the award ceremony with one of the advisory board members. I was told that they had, between them, about 150 or 200 names to consider. They each had a submission on behalf of these individuals to look over, and each came up with a list of ten that they thought would be the ones who ought to receive the awards from the group that they had. I was told that when they had their meeting - and they all did their assessment independently. When they sat down for their meeting it was remarkable that the people who were in the top ten were almost unanimous - done independently, separately, by each of the people on the board. When they sat down, the level of consistency between the advisory board members was such that they had, with few exceptions, the same eight or nine or ten names on their list.

It seems that we have a system that is working remarkably well to date. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do not see that it needs to be changed at this early date. I know the Premier is anxious to see people who are members of the Order be brought in as the advisors. I think that is a very wise move. I think it is a very commendable move. The Lieutenant-Governor in Council, of course, can do that now by adding, as their nominees, those who are recipients of the Order. So, I would encourage the government to do that, Cabinet to do that, and I do not think it is necessary, at this early stage, to change the system this quickly for a newly established Order, something that I would see happening a little bit further on down the road.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, if he speaks now he will close debate at second reading.

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

I appreciate the commentary coming from members and raising the points that they have raised. I do want to take some exception to some of the comments and just say this, that really what is driving this piece of legislation is the will of the government to ensure that the inductees are being brought in at the board level. We are making two changes in terms of what we talked about. The rest of the committee structure, as defined by the legislation, remains in place, but it does allow for an opportunity, as the Order evolves, as -

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) evolves (inaudible) all members.

MR. E. BYRNE: My colleague from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi just raised an excellent point, I think, that in terms it should be all members.

The experience across all jurisdictions has been this, that as other provinces who have similar Orders, as the base of those who are inducted broadens, so does the ability to attract from the Order a variety of different backgrounds and experiences. We feel at this time, and felt at this time, that there was enough there to start to begin that process. So, that is, in essence, why this amendment is being proposed and it is, in essence, why we are bringing it forward, to ensure that those who have been inducted into the Order of the Newfoundland and Labrador have the opportunity and experience to sit on the advisory board as part and parcel of having that Order

bestowed upon them, to help participate and to help make decisions on a go-forward basis with respect to other nominees that will come forward.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 70, An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador, 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 Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act. (Bill 70)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 70 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 in the day.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 70)

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 Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 61)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 61, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act." (Bill 61)

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

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

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, I guess I will introduce it from this perspective. Prior to 2004-2005 the Department of Government Services and Lands had budgeted up to $25,000, is my understanding, a year to operate the five-member Driver's Licence Suspension Review Board.

Most driver's licence suspensions, Mr. Speaker, are related to medical conditions - is the experience and advice that we have seen - and are based on the opinion of health care professionals contracted to advise the Motor Registration division. The Medical Advisory Board is made up of qualified specialists, for example. It provides additional expertise, when required, on specific or complex cases that come before them from time to time.

I think of the, approximately, 1,500 driver's licences suspended each year - that is an approximate figure provided by the department itself for medical reasons - only about an average of ten or twelve drivers, has been the experience throughout time, appeal the decision to the Suspension Review Board. The majority of appeals, over time, have been judged to be unsuccessful, while there have been some exceptions, of course.

Suspending a person's driver's licence, Mr. Speaker, is not something that is done lightly. It is not something that is done on a whim. It is something where all matters are judged, and looked to be judged in terms of the conditions that are brought forward, on the basis of sound medical information. Other options related to the suspension of driver licences could include restricting licences to allow an individual to drive during the day or within a certain radius or within certain rules and restrictions. Those are all examples of what has happened.

When an appeal came before the Review Board in the past, there is very little leeway, according to the legislation - very little, if any to be honest - for the board to consider overriding the original recommendation of the medical staff itself. Financial hardship, which has been pled on many instances, really is not a consideration when it comes to matters related to public safety or medical reasons related to why one's driver's licence could or would have been suspended.

Mr. Speaker, I guess the suspensions are done based on, again, medical reasons; based upon being part of national standards in order to protect public safety because, ultimately, that is what this is about, the protection of public safety. As an individual in the Province, or all of us who have driver's licences - I say to my colleague, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans said earlier that she got sent an extra driver's licence when she did not receive it and that you did not even get a bill in the mail for it. So, I did want to bring that to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, because he was absent when you were speaking about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: But it is about public safety and the issuance of a - I know it is a bit of a light moment but it was a light moment earlier today, too. The issue here, in terms of public safety, when you take a dramatic move to suspend a licence it is done so for public safety reasons.

Mr. Speaker, having a driver's licence is not an automatic right in Newfoundland and Labrador. There are conditions that we all must live by. There are rules that we must go by. It is a privilege really, but, again, this legislation or the Review Panel is ultimately about the maintenance of public safety and ensuring that public safety is paramount in the decisions with respect to motor registration.

The registrar, for example, Mr. Speaker, has the authority to not issue or to suspend a driver's licence if the registrar is of the opinion, for example, that a person is not competent to driver. The opinion is largely informed by qualified medical advice.

Mr. Speaker, those are just a few opening remarks with respect to Bill 61 that I bring forward in the stead of my colleague, the Minister of Government Services, who is attending a function this evening, and I do so within the spirit that she would have done it with.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In our haste to get up here tonight - because I did not think we would get an opportunity before Christmas to have a family friendly session. In any case, we are back here and my wife is enjoying the shopping here in the city tonight, so I figured I would get up and have a few words.

I have to say that I am not surprised to see this bill, Bill 61, an act to abolish the Driver's Licence Suspension Review Board. As a matter of fact, I am probably shocked more than anything else, because abolition seems to be the flavour of the day for this government. Since they have come to power, we have lost health care boards. We have lost education boards. All sorts of things we have lost through this government.

MS FOOTE: Weigh scales.

MR. SWEENEY: We have lost employees, such as the weigh scales, as my colleague says there - important factors in this Province when we look at the transportation system.

MR. O'BRIEN: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: The Member for Gander, if he wants to get up and have a few words, he can now in a minute.

When we are abolishing things, we always wonder the reasons why. I think the most compelling thing with this is: What are we doing here with the court system? As these people now have to find a way into the court system, what is going to happen? What is the waiting periods for these people? What would be the time frame? How long would they have to wait? Say, for instance, a seventy-five-year-old person, who had a stroke and recovered from the stroke, how long would that person have to wait before he or she had their day in court? The cost of a lawyer? This, to me, tonight, seems nothing more than a make-work project for the legal system. It is all it is doing. It is taking away the freedom and the luxury of being able to have their day before an appeal board, you know, ordinary citizens supplanted from around this Province, including the medical profession, to be able to make a decision to reinstate that licence. Lo and behold, here we are heading down now to the court system, to the Trial Division of this Province, and we hear about it all the time, cases waiting two and three years to go to court. Just think about that, a seventy-five-year-old person having to wait a year to get into court to get their licence reinstated.

MS FOOTE: They are not a young person anymore.

MR. SWEENEY: Well, yes, as my colleague says, even a young person. Just imagine, a young person nineteen years of age, for some reason or other had their licence suspended and trying to go back through and seek employment, for instance, being dependent upon getting a job based upon having a driver's licence. Now, what happens to that person if they have to wait six months before they go to court? I think we are taking away the right of our citizens here to have their problem heard and remedied in a timely fashion. I cannot help but wonder: What is behind this?

We had a system that was working fairly well, and all of a sudden now we are going through a change, to abolish this board and to send it down through the Trial Division. There is something seriously wrong with that. I do not see the rationale behind it.

I see the Minister of Justice over there shaking his head. He already has enough problems with the court system, trying to get people down in a timely fashion, and he is nodding there agreeing with me.

Mr. Speaker, there is something beyond what we have here. Somewhere in the dark interior of this government there is a motive for doing this, and I do not think for one second that we have to increase the workload on our legal system. I am sure the legal community is not crying for more work, heaven forbid.

Mr. Speaker, I think what this is, is another attempt to take away the input of the people of this Province from having some say into this particular policy. For the life of me, I do not know what it is. I do not know what the reason would be. I am not familiar with who these people are, who are on the board, who is there that should be eliminated, that government wants to eliminate over their term.

Again, I have to go back and say that it is about taking people away. We have parts of this Province who do not have any representation on our health care boards. I think there is one person out in Conception Bay North represented on this eastern health care board. I think there is one out there.

Our education boards: my colleague, the leader here, has told me that he has thirty-nine communities and he has one member on the school board. Taking the input of the people away from the things that are happening. The Member for Bellevue has nobody on his. So, what is the motive behind this? Mr. Speaker, that is why I speak against this motion. I think we should leave well enough alone and maintain the status quo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

I can only reiterate the comments that I made before in terms of the rationale and the reasons why we brought this piece of legislation forward. There is nothing covert going on, as some commentary might suggest. The fact of the matter is, it is what it is.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 61.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second time? I refer to Bill 61, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.

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 Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 61)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 61, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, 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.

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 certain matters related to the legislation that we have just concluded dealing with second readings.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider bills that have been read at second reading earlier in the day, and other matters that might be decided by the hon. the Government House Leader.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I introduce Committee stage on Bill 66, health care recovery.

CHAIR: Order, please!

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act." (Bill 66)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With regard to the definition of tobacco related wrong - apparently that is the purpose of this legislation - I would like to reiterate again that we are certainly in full support and favour of the amendment, but I query whether it achieves what is intended here. Certainly, we would not want to see a situation where we would lessen the Province's case because we use a certain definition.

Again it seems to me, from my reading of the Explanatory Note here, that we are saying all we are doing is adding the words "in the province", so that a tobacco related wrong shall now mean a breach of a common law, equitable or statutory duty or obligation owed by a manufacturer to persons in the province who have been exposed or might become exposed to a tobacco product.

I feel and would suggest that is limiting the definition; because, once we start to form the statement of claim on this matter so that we can actually initiate the suit against the tobacco manufacturers, the whole purpose of this definition is to define the class that we are suing on behalf of, and what class of people are we going to be including in the definition of tobacco related wrong.

By saying "in the province", I suggest and I think that the defendants in this case will try to interpret that to say that you must be living here now. That would severely, I would suggest, restrict the Province's chance of recovering, because we do not only want to recover for the damages that have been caused to people who have had tobacco related wrongs and they happen to be living here now; we want to have it as broad as we can. If there were 50,000 people who lived here in the 1970s or 1980s or 1990s who suffered a tobacco related wrong that we could possibly include in this statement of claim, they ought to be included.

I strongly suggest that the minister should take into consideration these comments. There is nothing wrong with saying "in the province", but I think there should also be something here that says in the province or at some time resided in the province, so that we do not lose the benefit of being able to sue on behalf of those people who were here but are not here any more.

Thank you.

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 Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery 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 66, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 66 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Bill 67 dealing with the amendments to the Public Service Commission Act.

CHAIR: Bill 67, An Act To Amend The Public Service Commission Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Commission Act." (Bill 67)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 4.

CHAIR: Clauses 2 to 4. Shall clauses 2 to 4 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 to 4 are carried.

On motion, clauses 2 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 Public Service Commission 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 67, An Act To Amend The Public Service Commission Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 67 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Bill 72, amendments to the Fish Inspection Act.

CHAIR: Bill 72, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act.

A bill, "An Act to Amend The Fish Inspection Act." (Bill 72)

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 4.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 4 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 to 4 are carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 4 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by 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 Fish Inspection 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 72, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 72 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Move to Committee stage debate on Bill 63, amendments to Memorial University Pensions Act.

CHAIR: Bill 63, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act." (Bill 63)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 10.

CHAIR: Clauses 1 to 10.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to say a couple of words here about some of the provisions of this legislation that provides an opportunity for part-time and contract employees of the university and related agencies to receive pensions.

I do note that this does not actually grant them pensions or does not give them access to pensions and I wonder why the act does not do that. Perhaps the minister can explain, if this is what the board wanted to do, why are we not doing it? Why are we waiting for some other step to take place? It certainly empowers the pension board and the board of the university to include employees who are full-time or part-time for a fixed term and also allows them to be part of the plan but it does not actually make them part of the plan.

I am wondering why the minister is doing this in two stages, in one sense? It is a enabling legislation. It does not actually grant those employees any rights to participate in the pension at all. It gives the employer an option to include them. Could the minister tell us why that is and why, in fact, we are not just saying that they are members of the plan or they are entitled to be members of the plan and that the board can set up such regulations to give effect to that provision?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: The only comments I want to make is that I do not really understand the nature of what you are asking. I do not know if you want to explain it a bit more so I can get an answer to sort of rectify the situation and see if I can satisfy what you are asking.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, I would certainly be glad to explain it in a little more detail.

What this act does, we are looking at the application of the pension plan act. The pension plan applies to people who are full-time, permanent employees. That is on page five there, 3.(1)(a). Then (b) is full-time people who are employed by the Memorial University Recreation Complex, that is fine. The third one is full-time people who are employed for an indefinite term. In other words, permanent employees of a related not-for-profit employer. Then, interestingly, (d) is the one that says a person directed by the board to be included in the pension plan under subsection 29.1(2) - that is a category I will get to in a moment. Then (e) a person appointed by the board or by an employer referred to above, who is employed on a less than full-time basis for an indefinite period.

So far, we are dealing with people who are all permanent employees, whether they are full-time or less than full-time. That is fine. So, less than full-time employees who are permanent. In other words, if you have a half-time job but you are a permanent employee than you are included in the plan. The persons referred to under (d) here are required to go then to page 8, clause 8, which is section 29 of the act. What it does here, in 29.1(2) "Subject to the approval of the minister, the board may prescribe by policy directive that (a) employees appointed by the board who are employed full-time or part-time for a fixed term...". In other words, contract employees.

So if you are employed for a fixed term, let's say full-time for a semester, or part-time for a semester, then you may be included if the board decides to include you and the minister approves it. In other words, these contract employees are not yet included in the pension plan. The contract employees are not yet included. That is whether they are employed directly by the board or employed by one of the other employers, for example, the MURC, or whatever it is called, or something else. It allows the part-time or full-time contract employees to be included, but two things must happen. First of all, the minister must approve it. Second of all, the board may provide a policy directive.

In other words, this legislation does not take effect of including the contract employees right now. It allows it to happen, but it is not happening yet. I am wondering why it is being done in this kind of iffy sort of way. Well, we are allowing you do to it if you want to and if we approve it. It seems progressive to include them, and they should be included, but why aren't we including them now in saying they will be included subject to rules and regulations made by the board?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: Thank you.

I hope I address the question. If I do not have an adequate answer, we can certainly get the answer and report back to the House with that.

It is my understanding that this allows for portability so people can get into the pension plan, but not all the time do people on contract necessarily want to get into the pension plan. That could mean that they are already on a pension or they are back during retirement or have other plans set up. This allows them that flexibility, that if they want - and those conditions are met - they can get into the plan. If they are on a contract and they may not want to be in the plan, that they do not necessarily have to be included on the plan. That can include somebody who has retired from probably another position, just going to work for a semester, or have a fixed term of employment on contract that they would like to address without necessarily paying into the MUN Pension Plan, especially if they are not going to be drawing on that plan or it is not going to have any significant enhancements in their present plan.

I do not know if that is answering the question of what you are asking. I tend to think it is. If it is not, we can certainly provide some further information to what you are talking about.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

No, I am afraid it does not answer the question. Although, the points that the minister has made may be well taken. I think if they were included, there may be people who might have the desire to opt out or something like that, but right now, as a result of the passing of this legislation, none of them will be included, none of them will have access to a pension. It is only if the board decides if they want to and only if the minister approves it. In other words, access to these pensions is not even given right now. Whether people want to opt out or not, that is a different matter.

If the minister needs to get some information from her officials to reply back on that, but it seems very clear to me - and this is new legislation to me, I will confess, because we only saw it today - but it certainly seems clear that unless there is a policy directive made by the board, and the minister approves it, the term people or the contract people are not going to be included in the pension plan. So, the question is: Why are we not doing it now? If the desire is to include them, why aren't we doing it now?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: Thank you.

It is certainly the intent, of bringing in this legislation, that it would provide for formal recognition of the eligible contract employees to come into the plan. But what I will do is, we will get some more information on the question that you are asking so we can clarify the situation. I thought I was clarifying it and understanding it, but I do want to take it back to the officials to make sure that your concerns are addressed.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Based upon the minister's answers, certainly, we are prepared to leave this where it is until the minister reports back to the member so that the information that is being committed to or committed to find, in terms of providing an explanation or further explanation - because, as the minister has indicated, there is certainly no intention to try to exclude anyone from this process. The intent of this piece of legislation is to include people into it. But, as the minister has indicated, having raised a valid point, she has given the endeavour to seek further clarification for the question that you have raised and we will deal with it when that information comes back.

So, Mr. Chair, with that, if I could move to Committee stage debate on Bill 70, the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador.

CHAIR: Bill 70, An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act." (Bill 70)

CLERK: Clause 1

CHAIR: Clause 1. Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, I have to state, categorically, that I am opposed to the amendment being put forward. The reason being, the establishment of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador, I believe, was an admirable step that we took to recognize, in our Province, people who make contributions socially, culturally, economically, in whatever field of endeavour, and we set up this Order to recognize them. I think that was very good and it was overdue and needed to be done, and it is good to see it started.

But, on the Advisory Committee, people make recommendations - just so people understand what we are talking about here. There is a committee to whom recommendations are made and, from all the recommendations that are made, this committee selects or makes recommendations of who should be the recipients in any given year. Now, as I understand it, anybody in the Province is free to make a recommendation of any person in this Province who they feel ought to be a recipient and falls within the criteria set out in the act.

The Lieutenant-Governor of the Province is automatically the Chancellor of the Order. On this committee - it was set up in such a way that there would be seven people on it. There would be the Chief Justice of Newfoundland; the President of Memorial University, whoever he or she might be in any given year. There would be the Clerk of the Executive Council - and a lot of people do not understand who that might be, but that is the top civil servant, shall we say, in the Province and the Clerk to the Cabinet and a very important public sector person at the top of the pinnacle when it comes to the public sector. We have those three people there. These are people who would, by the nature of their positions, I suggest, give it some consistency. These are people who understand the Province. They are usually long standing in their positions. They are usually very influential and have lots of contacts. For example, the Chief Justice certainly knows the law of the land as to what would be applicable, is used to being impartial, and a very prestigious person who would be chairing this committee.

The president of the university - it speaks for itself - one of the most honourable professions, positions, in our Province, has contact with everybody in the Province, pretty well, no matter where you come from or where you go. Memorial has a large and immense impact in our society, culturally, educationally and so on, and these people are there.

What this bill is doing here tonight is saying that is not good enough. We want two people also who have themselves been recipients of the Order to be a part of the advisory committee, and there is nothing wrong with that, to have two people who are already recipients of the Order play a role in selecting who will be the future recipients of the Order - absolutely nothing wrong with that - but what we have omitted here is what is problematic. We have cut out the two persons - for example, the president the university and the Chief Justice of the Province.

My question to government, and our question as an Opposition, is - it is fine if you are going to move in a certain direction, but I think we have an obligation to ask government - why are you moving in a particular direction? Particularly, if the direction in which you are moving does not make any sense, the question becomes: Why would you move in that direction?

I have not heard a good answer. All I have heard is that it is great to have two recipients of the Order play a part in the advisory council. Absolutely nobody in the Province, I don't think, would disagree with that. I do not even have a big problem with the fact that they are going to be selected by the Cabinet. It says the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Again, for those people in TV land who probably do not understand what that wording means, Lieutenant-Governor in Council, that is the Cabinet; for example, the Premier. Some people might suggest that could have political ramifications; that could be the subject of political choice.

Now, there is already some political choice built into the law of the Order because there are four other persons, in addition to the three that I have named: the president of the university, the Clerk of the Council, and the Chief Justice. There is already room right now where the Premier, the Cabinet, gets to appoint four. That makes up the seven.

What they have done now is, they are saying that it is not good enough that the Premier might have controlling interest and decide who it is going to be. We are going to go a little bit further. We do not think that the Chief Justice of the Province should play any role in this. We do not think the president of MUN should play any role in this. Out of the seven, we are going to make sure that six of them are chosen by the Premier. By the way, the seventh one is, too, if the truth be known, because the Clerk only keeps his job at pleasure.

So, right away we have gone from a system that we are awarding people in this Province probably the highest order that you can get in this Province. It is the highest order of distinction that you can get in this Province, and we had it clothed in that distinction and that prestige by having two very impartial people in this Province play a role in it - for example, the Chief Justice of the Province and the president of MUN. What have we done now? We have taken away that prestige. We have taken away that impartiality that would go with that selection process. We have said: Let the Premier of the Province decide who is going to be the seven persons on that committee to decide who should be honoured as great Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I think that is wrong. I think that is the wrong direction, and that is why I speak out on it. I see nothing wrong with the direction of saying two honourees should play a role, and there is room there now to do that. Of the four that the Premier currently gets to pick under the law, if the Premier wants to say, or even if you want to amend it to say, that two of those four shall be former honourees, or if you want to amend it to say that we will have a committee of nine, so that the extra two shall be former honourees, there is nothing wrong with that.

I think we are sending the wrong message, as a Legislature, definitely the wrong message. Even talking about this somehow or other belittles what we are about here. We are talking about the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. It does not feel right. It does not feel right in your gut, that you are talking about the highest distinction in this land, and we have gone from making it chaired, the committee who selects it, by the most impartial person in our democratic system - for example, the Chief Justice of the Province - and we are saying remove any, even, looks of impartiality. Remove Memorial University's president and let's make this absolutely, totally, 100 per cent, subject to the political whim of a political person.

I think that is wrong. That is not right, and that is why I speak out on this vehemently. It is not right. It is fine for government to move, and it is fine for government to pass cleanup legislation, to pass legislation that improves upon a situation, but why are we doing anything?

The Leader of the NDP commented as well. It is too early in the game, even, if you are going to consider it. We only passed this in 2001. We do not even have any history associated with it.

MR. HARRIS: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

MR. PARSONS: If it ain't broke, why fix it?, says the Leader of the NDP. That is my question.

I don't know if anybody is suggesting that there is anything wrong in the selections of the past honourees, because the Chief Justice happened to chair the advisory committee and because the president of Memorial University happened to be there. I am sure every person who has received the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador to date is a worthy recipient, absolutely, so nothing has been done untoward or improper with what has happened to date. So, if there is nothing wrong with what we are doing, why do we change it now to, I would suggest and suggest strongly, create the impression that we are politicizing it? That is the last thing in this Province we need to politicize, the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. This just pops across the floor of the House here as a household amendment, a cleanup piece of legislation. Well, I am sorry to disagree with the Government House Leader and the government. This is not simply a piece of cleanup legislation. This creates the impression that this is being politicized, and that is absolutely improper.

I do not care who you are, and what profession you are in, and what is your job and your business; there is nothing wrong with admitting from time to time that we may have done something a little bit untoward here. We may have done something a little bit too fast here. We may not have put a lot of thought into this. We may not have thought about the possible negative impacts that this might have had. We might be moving on this a little too quickly.

That shows maturity, to me. That shows somebody who is prepared and has the wisdom to say maybe we are moving a little too swift; let's sit back and think about this. That is what, I think, has happened here. I do not think the thought has gone into this.

Someone suggested that, because I made the comment about the fact that the Chief Justice was the former Liberal Premier - I didn't mean anything untoward about it, or negative, but that is the kind of impression that is going to be left in the public, and you may as well say it as think it, because it is even worse if you think about it and you go behind dark corners and alleyways and talk about it, and you do not say it publicly.

My view on it is, I do not want people in this Province saying that political will or political stripe played a role in selecting anybody as a recipient of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador, and this bill goes a little bit closer to doing that. Explain to the guy who lives in Comfort Cove, Burgeo and Rose Blanche: Why, all of a sudden, are the Chief Justice of the Province and the president of Memorial University not fit to sit on the advisory committee? Why? Explain that to them. The first question I am going to get asked back is: Well, why aren't they on there any more?

I have not heard one suggestion from anybody on the government side why these individuals are not there. I am hearing reasons as to why we should have former recipients there, and I absolutely agree with it, but nobody is giving me a reason as to why the Chief Justice of this Province and the president of Memorial University are being kicked off of there. That is what is happening; they are being kicked off of there. They are being abolished as members of that advisory committee.

I say that is not right. I say to the government, if you are true to what you always preach, that you are leading this Province in the right direction, this is only one small example of where, for God's sake, if somebody makes a constructive suggestion, don't be so big in your boots that you cannot ever say maybe we are acting too quickly. Give it some second, sober thought. Maybe in the cold stare of a second glare in the morning we might see differently, because are doing something here that could negatively impact what is an honourable institution right now.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I respect the hon. member's right to the opinion that he has. Nobody has talked about the president of Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador or the Chief Justice as being unfit to serve on this committee. Nobody in government is saying that, or has said that. The only commentary - nor are we going to say it, because that is not the intention, the spirit or intent of what this piece of legislation is about. I am not going to get into that sort of debate to lend any credence to that point of view because there is no credence to it, from the government's point of view.

We agree with the structure of the committee to this extent in terms of the number of people. We believe, in terms of seven, we believe strongly, that the four members appointed from at large still need to be four members from at large. We made a decision not to move forward to expand the committee to eight, nine, or ten. We believe seven is large enough. We believe that the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador, when it was first established, and the individuals who were in the positions that were established in legislation to bring the Order up and running and get it moving to a point where we have a body of people who have made an outstanding contribution to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, to our home and to the homes that they live in, that it was absolutely the right decision to do at the time. I think the record of the House would show, quite clearly - Hansard will show, quite clearly - that during that period of debate, that piece of legislation was supported; but we believe, Mr. Chair, and this is where the point of view differs: number one, we are not saying that the president of Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador is unfit to be on that committee, or the position is unfit to be on that committee. We are not saying that the Chief Justice, either now or into the future, is not fit to be on that committee. Those are the words of members of the Opposition. Those are not the words of government. I do not want to leave any impression out there that this is why this piece of legislation is being brought forward, because it is not.

On behalf of the government earlier, and I will do it again right now, for the contributions that those individuals who currently hold those positions have made, I want to thank them publicly for the contributions that they have made, because they have made a contribution, but let me say this -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: - and a very positive contribution, I might add, Mr. Chair, and it is important to say that, but here is where the fundamental disagreement comes into play. We believe that the Order has grown to such an extent in terms of the people who have been bestowed that honour, that we believe from that Order, from the individuals who were inducted, who represent the Province, who the Province has recognized for their outstanding contributions, we believe it is time for the Order to start making some decisions themselves, and that is why this piece of legislation is coming forward. Nothing more, nothing less. It is in line in keeping - if you look at other jurisdictions across the country, similar moves have been made, similar policy directions have been taken, and they have been taken for the right reasons, as is this piece of legislation and the decisions that we made were taken also for the right reasons.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Maybe the Government House Leader missed something in the spirit and intent of my comments. I certainly would not want him to suggest that I have any problem with the Order - absolutely not - or any former recipients of it. In fact, I have nominated some suggestions for it.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: No, that is fine.

Again, I say to the government, I have said it twice today and I am on my feet now, the third time, saying it again: It ain't broke, but yet you are going to decide to fix it.

I am not talking about the persons who fill those positions now. I do not care what their names are, whether they are Axel's or Clyde's or John's or Jim's or anybody else's, we are talking about the positions of the Chief Justice of this Province and the President of Memorial University. I still have not heard from the Government House Leader, or anybody on the government side, why they have to be removed.

Now you can get up over there all you want and say: We believe in the Order. We believe that everything has been done proper so far - which it has. We believe that we ought to keep it - which we all agree we should - but we are going to change it. My question is pretty simple - and it is not only me. There are people out there who watch this stuff on TV. They want to know, and I am sure they are asking what I am talking about here. I am simply asking the government: Why are you saying that the Chief Justice of this Province and the President of Memorial University cannot be on this advisory committee? I am not hearing any response from the government. The government is saying: Well, we are not saying they are bad people. We are not saying we do not want them, but we just decided we are going to go in another direction and we want the honourees to play a role in this. Well we want the honourees to play a role in it as well. I still have not heard any reason from the government: Why are you kicking these two persons off? You can colour it anyway you want. You can sugarcoat it anyway you want, but you have made a decision, as a government, to knock the Chief Justice of the Province and the President of MUN off the advisory committee. Now, those are the facts. It is not about spirit and intent or anything else. Those are the facts. All I am asking for is an explanation.

I think that part of a role as an Opposition member is to hold the government accountable and ask you: Please, tell me, and tell the people of this Province, why you do not think the positions of Chief Justice of the Province and President of Memorial should anymore play a role in the selection of our honourees on the Order? There is no cost. There is absolutely no cost to government in keeping it like it is and adding the hounourees if you wish. Absolutely, no cost whatsoever. It is not a cost factor. There are no more streamlines, seven is seven. The only thing that has changed about this is you have kicked out two people and you have given the selection of the seven totally to one person, the Premier. I am saying that just raises somebody's questions of why would we get rid of two people who are known to be impartial in our society to replace them with two political appointees? What is going on? Why? I still do not have an answer. That is where governments get known as being arrogant.

Governments become known as being arrogant when they propose legislation - when somebody asks a sensible question and they do not get an answer. We do not have to answer that for you. We are not telling you anything. Go away with you. We have made up our minds and we think it is right. Now, why have we decided to take these two positions out, we are not telling you. That is arrogance, and the people out there in TV land and around this Province, when they find out about this stuff they ask the same questions. Why would they do that? - because it is not rocket science. We know what has been done. Somebody made a decision that it be done. Where did the recommendation come from? Who said that? Was this done around a Cabinet table and somebody all of a sudden said: No, we do not think the Chief Justice of the Province should be Chairing that anymore. We do not think we need the President of MUN there anymore. Did it come from some bureaucrat? That is all we are asking. What is the rationale? Where did it come from? Whoever proposed it, I would think, certainly told government why they proposed it. We are just asking a question of why you want to do this, because it does not make any sense.

Again, I must say to the Government House Leader here, I see nothing wrong with spirit and intent of legislation, but we are not getting either the spirit of this and we are not getting the intent. I am asking you the intent. What is the intention, the motivation, the rationale, the reason, the justification for taking out these two people? And I have not been told. Again, if there is no cost, if the positions that are currently there are honourable, if the system is working and if everybody likes it, why are we rushing to do something that does not need to be fixed?

Thank you.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We stand here on a daily basis and ask the government questions because it is our job to do that. In fact, that is part of what our salary is paid to us for, to ask questions of the government; to hold them accountable. Sometimes the people opposite in government do not like the questions we ask. Sometimes we do not even like some of the questions we ask, but we feel we have to raise issues. What we have found here, as of late, is we can ask all the questions we want and we never get answers, or the answers that we do get are not suitable. You certainly do not give the answers to questions that the people in the Province want to hear.

My colleague, the Opposition House Leader, here tonight has asked a very interesting question and a very important question. It is a question that we deserve a right to have an answer to, and I am sure the people of the Province deserve the right to have an answer to, and I am sure, even more so, it is a question that the President of Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Chief Justice of this Province would like to have answered. Did these two individuals, I say to the Government House Leader - because you are the one who introduced the bill, I say. It was not the Minister of Justice or anyone else. It was the Government House Leader, the Minister of Natural Resources who introduced the bill. Did these individuals ask to be taken off the board? If they did, did they ask for their positions as the Chief Justice and the President of Memorial University, did they say take the positions off? Because it leaves the question: Why did you do it? I do not want to belabour the point but the fact of the matter is, we never get an answer to that question. The Government House Leader just stood that time and basically said: I know the answer, but I am not telling you.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Well, you certainly never gave the answer. I will sit down if you want to give the answer. I will sit down.

Listen, what is wrong with having the Chief Justice and the President of Memorial University on the selection committee? I know one thing, if I were to be a recipient of that someday, if I were lucky enough to become a recipient of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador, I would find the award far more prestigious if I knew that the Chief Justice of the Province sat on the selection committee. I would find the Order to be far more honourable and prestigious if I knew the President of Memorial University was on the selection committee rather than to take these two off and then have seven handpicked individuals - and I mean handpicked - by the Premier. Because I am quite certain in looking over there today, that no one in the backbench over there have a say in who is on that board and why they took the Chief Justice and the President of Memorial University off there. I doubt very much if anyone in the Cabinet came up with this piece of legislation. I think that this came directly from the Premier, and I do not see the honour really in getting an award if, basically, it was handpicked or decreed by one individual, the Premier of the Province - and no disrespect for the Premier. I would say the same thing about him if he were a member of the Liberal Party today.

I remember when this bill came before the House of Assembly some years ago. I do not even know if there was any debate on it. I do not remember anyone who now sits in the government, when they were sitting in Opposition, I do not remember any of them, including the House Leader, getting up complaining and say: We should not have the Chief Justice or the President of Memorial University sit on that board or the selection committee. I do not remember any of this. To simply drop this on the table in the last week as a piece of housekeeping, piece of meaningless legislation that does not change anything, I do not think that is appropriate, I say to the minister, and we would really like to know why you cannot leave these two very, very influential people.

It is not even the people who occupy the position right now because it is occupied by Chief Justice Wells and the President of Memorial University, Axel Meisen. Tomorrow both of these individuals may change. It is the position and not the individual that is of important here because I think we all, in this Province, have a great deal of respect for the Chief Justice, whomever he may be or whomever she may be, and I am sure that we all have a great deal of respect for the President of Memorial University.

The Minister of Justice sits here tonight and looks across the floor, and I am wondering what he thinks about it. Does he want the Chief Justice - and he has far more to do and is closer to the Chief Justice of this Province than I will ever be because he is a lawyer by profession himself. I cannot see the Minister of Justice having a problem with having the Chief Justice on any board in this Province.

All I am saying to the hon. Government House Leader is this, you have not answered the question that was posed by my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, and that is all we want to hear. It is not a matter of money, because I doubt very much if you are paying the President of the University or the Chief Justice to sit on that board. It is not about numbers because you have seven and you could easily make it nine, or you could leave it at seven and put two inductees into the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. You can pick those. The problem, I think, is that the Premier already picks all, but two, of these himself. Why does he want to pick them all? I think right now he picks five out of the seven and the only two that he does not pick are the two that are itemized in the piece of legislation that we enacted back here a few years ago. All that was there then were two positions, not two individuals, the Chief Justice of Newfoundland and Labrador and the President of Memorial University. All we are asking is to leave them there or at least give us some valid reason why you want to take them out, because all you are doing right now is politicizing the selection process.

By having the President of Memorial University and having the Chief Justice there, it de-politicizes. It de-politicizes the whole process and as a result, I think that anyone who gets the award would find it an honour to get the award because at least two of the seven people who were there were unbiased and they have a clout that comes with them. They would be able to look at their grandchildren and say: This award was given to me by some of the highest ranking and most influential people in Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, that is being stripped out. To me, what you are doing is basically defacing the award. You are belittling the award to be called into the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I say to the hon. Government House Leader, stand tonight and do the simple thing, answer the question as posed by the Opposition House Leader, my colleague, and rescind this piece of legislation. Take it off the table and leave those two positions where they are.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

First of all, nobody in government has said that this piece of legislation is meaningless and that it has been dropped on the table in the last hour -

MR. SULLIVAN: Housekeeping.

MR. E. BYRNE: - or said that it was housekeeping. Nobody has said that. I guess the only reference that has been made to this piece of legislation, to the Order, has been made by my colleagues opposite. Government certainly does not believe that.

MR. REID: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. REID: I am not going to stand here tonight and let the Government House Leader say that I am belittling the Order and to say that it is a useless and meaningless piece of legislation. All I am saying is that this is a piece of housekeeping that you brought in here today under the guise of a piece of housekeeping until we had a good look at it and found that it was not, indeed, a piece of meaningless housekeeping business in the House of Assembly.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: It is a very real thing that you are trying to do here tonight and we happen to disagree with you.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: You can call that what you like. We still think what you are doing is wrong and we ask you to withdraw the piece of legislation that you have before the House.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I am not speaking to the point of order, Mr. Chairman. There is no point of order.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

All I said to the Leader of the Opposition was that we have not said that this is a meaningless piece of legislation. Up he jumps, exercised. I never put any words in his mouth; never said anything about him. All I said was that in terms of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, that is correct.

Look, what the Opposition have a right to do, and their obligated constitutional right, is to ask us the questions and hold us to account. Let me say this to the Leader of the Opposition. I spent ten years over there as an Opposition - and I believe an effective one on many times -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: - so I understand ultimately and very intimately, more than any member over there, what it is to be an Official Opposition for a decade to hold the government accountable. I respect the role that must be played because without it, there would not be a government that would be accountable anywhere in Canada or in the system that we have.

Having said that, while I respect that role and respect the right that comes with that role, that does not mean that I have to agree with everything the Opposition says. For example, the Opposition House Leader and the Leader of the Opposition have said: We have gotten no answer from the Government House Leader tonight, we have gotten no answer from the government on this. The fact of the matter is this, Mr. Chairman; government has made a decision with respect to a very prestigious order in Newfoundland and Labrador called the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have maintained the same number of people on the committee. What we have done is we have replaced the Chief Justice position and the President of Memorial University with what we believe will be two individuals who now hold the Order in perpetuity, and we believe that is the right move to make simply because when this legislation was instituted there was nobody inducted. They were put in place for specific reasons. There was not an induction. There was nobody to put in play. Every experience across the country and in other jurisdictions provides - as the Leader of the NDP said, I hope there is a time when all of the decision makers with respect to the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador are all recipients, and we are moving in that direction today.

The Opposition - the only answer I could give, to be frank, that would satisfy them is to capitulate to what they want in terms of pulling the legislation. We are not going to do that. We have a right to come before the House of Assembly, as the duly-elected government of the people of the Province, bring forward legislation for debate in an open way, stand to account, and answer the questions that have been asked of us, even if people disagree. We have an obligation to outline why we are moving in that direction, and I believe we have done that tonight. I believe we have done it to the point whereby we have laid out our point of view, the Opposition have laid out their point of view, and there is a fundamental disagreement. I respect that there is a fundamental disagreement, but government has an obligation to move forward in the direction that we have determined will be in the best interest, in our view, of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador, will be in the best interest of ensuring that because we now have a broad base of inductees, that we will be bringing those who have been inducted into the decision-making role of who else should be inducted. We believe that, onto itself, has merit, and that is why we are moving into that direction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I would go further, as I just said, and agree with my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, when he said this, that I hope in the very near future or at some point into the future as this order grows and the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador matures and the body of people in it become larger, that we will look to a point in the future whereby the decisions, with respect to those who get inducted, will be made by fellow inductees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: When someone referenced earlier that somehow we are diminishing the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador, I fail to see the logic in that we are diminishing the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador by bringing two inductees into it to assist.

While the Leader of the Opposition - I know they agree with bringing inductees in.

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, that is not what I am saying, the Member for Grand Bank, if you would let me finish. I understand what the Leader of the Opposition said. I was sitting right across from him when he said it. The Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition House Leader both agree, they both said that we should bring inductees into it. They agree with that, but they are very strong on the point that we should maintain the President of Memorial, whomever he or she may be, and maintaining the Chief Justice, whomever he or she may be. We have a fundamental disagreement with that. Therein lies the policy direction where you would go and the direction -

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Grand Bank, you do not understand. The fact of the matter is you are failing to understand this: That from our point of view we have put forward our case in the Legislature. You disagree with it. That is your right and I respect your right to disagree with it. You have put forward your opinion on where it should go. I respect what your opinion is, but I happen to disagree with that. So we have moved in a certain direction whereby it reflects the reality of a growing, I guess, number of people who have been inducted into the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we believe this direction is the best direction to move in.

With that, Mr. Chair, I will conclude my comments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to say a few words here at Committee stage on this legislation to amend the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador Act. I thank the Government House Leader for referring to my remarks and agreeing with me, that we should see the day when all of the advisory committee members who were involved in choosing the inductees to the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador are recipients themselves.

The question, I guess, is how do we get there. Right now we have a situation where three of the advisory committee are, by virtue of their office, the Clerk of the Executive Council, which is, of course, appointed by the Cabinet, the President of Memorial University and the Chief Justice of Newfoundland and Labrador, whomever those three individuals may be from time to time. We have, in addition to that, a number of people who are appointed by the Cabinet.

The method that the government has chosen to bring inductees into this Advisory Board is by replacing the ex officio people and appointing themselves, the Cabinet appointing, two of the, perhaps, twenty-four or twenty-three people who have gotten the Order. Now we are going from the point where we have four out of seven appointed by the Cabinet to seven out of seven being appointed by the Cabinet. I just think that is the wrong way to get into the position where we are going to have all inductees on the board. There are many ways to add inductees. You can just add them by saying, instead of seven we are going to have nine, or you could use two of your own appointees. If you have already appointed you can invite some of the people you have appointed to resign, which can easily be done, I suppose, and then appoint some inductees, or you can do something else.

Some of the points that have been made, I made them, that there is a certain prestige at the present moment in having the Chief Justice and the President of the University involved in the process. It has given some status to the award that it might not otherwise have had. As has been said by all hands on all sides of the House, those who have been awarded the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador have been sterling candidates for the Order and have brought, themselves, a measure of prestige and honour and status to the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I guess the concern that has been expressed here is, are we going the wrong way to bring it up to a stable position where we have a self - not self-perpetuating, I do not mean that - but a group of people who are clearly not those appointed by the Cabinet of the day but rather are people who, having received the Order themselves, have a stake in maintaining the standards that are there, being objective, not being subject to potential political sway, et cetera, et cetera. We see, you know, where the Order of Canada, for example, is totally outside the political process. We have achieved that. It gives a prestige to the Order. I am a little worried that, because of the nature of this debate and the potential politicization of the situation, that we are going to diminish, somehow, the status of the Order.

While I do not think the status quo is necessarily correct, I think we are in a situation where it is quite appropriate to add inductees, either by adding them to the list so that we have nine instead of seven, but I think we should, for the time being at least, keep the Chief Justice and the President of the University there. As we get to the point where the majority on this Advisory Board are inductees, then I think it might well be appropriate to remove the then President of the University. It could be the Member for Grand Bank, I do not know. It could be the Member for Grand Bank who would be the President of the University. At that point, it might be appropriate to remove those ex officio members, when you have a majority of this board with a sufficient level of status, of recognition, by being inductees themselves.

That is my preferred method, Mr. Chair, as to how to get to where, I think, both the Government House Leader and I would like to see this Order go to maintain and build on the prestige that it already has.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have to speak to this because, having listened to the Government House Leader, it boggles the mind exactly what it is he is proposing here. On the one hand he is trying to say they are taking it out of the political realm, but when you look at the composition of the board itself, you have every individual who is now going to comprise this committee, in fact being appointed by the Premier. If he wanted to suggest that they want to have more people involved who are recipients of the award, then why doesn't he just make all seven recipients of the award? Since the award has been instituted, there have been enough people given the award, the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador, to, in fact, make up the entire committee. If that is what they want to do, do it now, instead of bringing in this amendment to this act which suggests that they are going to get rid of the Chief Justice, they are going to get rid of the President of the University, but they are going to keep the Clerk of the Executive Council.

MR. REID: Who appoints the Clerk?

MS FOOTE: Now, we all know who appoints the Clerk of the Executive Council. What they are doing is politicizing the most important award in Newfoundland and Labrador, the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. For anyone to suggest that what they are doing is because it is a difference of opinion that they have with the Opposition, that this is their view on how this should evolve, and the only difference here is that the Opposition does not think it is the right way that it should be - but that is okay because, you know, they are the government, they make the decisions, they have the majority in the House, so far be it from the Opposition to come up with a good idea that they would like to entertain. Well, at the end of the day, you are removing two positions. Forget the individuals in the positions. I have worked with both individuals. I do not think there is a political bone in the body of either of these individuals. It is not the individuals in question here, it is the positions that they hold.

I know, having worked at the university with the President of the university, that no matter who holds that position, they know they have to work with whatever government holds office, and they do that. The President of the university, whether it is Axel Meisen or Art May or whether it was Les Harris, all reputable individuals - Mose Morgan, and we will stop there - all reputable individuals who anybody could look to for sound advice, for good judgement, and never have to question whether or not they were doing something that was politically motivated.

What we have here is the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the actions of this government tonight I think are going to demean that order, and that is the unfortunate thing about all of this. Here we are up debating the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador and who should sit on that committee, who should decide who receives the award. We should never be having that discussion. That is why it was established in the first place with the positions that we put on that, and it came to the House of Assembly and everybody agreed. There was no question, no debate. Chief Justice, obviously that position should be there. President of the university, obviously. We have one university in Newfoundland and Labrador and the President of that university, who knows a lot of people, who has served on a lot of boards, would bring great insight into this whole decision-making process. Here we are tonight discussing getting rid of those two positions in favour of bringing in two individuals who are award winners, and that is an excellent idea, to bring in two recipients. You are going to maintain the four at large positions where I would venture you could probably cut that to two, so you will have two at-large positions instead of four for the Premier to appoint. You have two of the honourary awards people, people who received the award. You would have two of those and you would have the President of the university, the Chief Justice, and the Clerk of the Executive Council. That is your seven, if you do not want to enlarge the size of the committee. What is wrong with enlarging it? What is wrong with having more insight? What is wrong with having greater discussion? What is wrong with bringing more experience to the table? There cannot be anything wrong with doing that when you are talking about the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is not something that should be restrained or confined. This is not something that should be talked about in the sense of, well we cannot have this many people on, because there is no cost associated with this.

What we are trying to do here is bring a wealth of knowledge, a wealth of experience, to this whole exercise; trying to make sure that we have people involved in this process who should be there, who make a difference. That is all we are suggesting, as an Opposition, that it is foolhardy for the government to stand up here tonight and say it is just a difference of opinion between the government and the Opposition. Why? It was not broken. It was working, obviously. I would venture to gain that every one of the ones who were nominated and received the award were worthy of it. Certainly, there is no one who received the award that you are questioning whether or not they should have. Obviously, the decisions that were made were right. So, if the decisions that were made were right, then why, tonight, are we suggesting that two of the positions - two of the individuals positions in particular - should be removed from that decision-making process? Instead, we would end up with seven individuals, all of whom would be hand-picked by the Premier to comprise this committee.

That raises questions, left, right and centre, about what is happening and what it is going to mean to the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. For this award to be seen to be non-political, it is so important for individuals who hold the position of president of the university and Chief Justice, or some other position even, to comprise this committee so that they are not all just hand-picked by the Premier of the Province, making this a political exercise which it was never intended to be.

That is what is happening here tonight. As much as the Government House Leader wants to stand and say he is giving answers, we just don't like what he is saying - well, you are right about that. We do not like what he is saying, but that does not mean that what he is saying is right either. The point here is that they are taking the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador and turning it into something that it was never intended to be. It was never intended to be something that will be given to someone by the Premier as a thank you, or a reward for some service delivered. It was meant to be an acknowledgment of a contribution to this Province by individuals who live in Newfoundland and Labrador, or Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I am nervous here tonight, that what is going to come about as a result of this exercise by the government - because we all know there will be a vote taken and the government has the majority, so no matter how much we disagree with this, the fact of the matter is that it is not right and we are going to continue to say it is not right. We would like to think that the government would, from time to time, acknowledge that we do have good ideas and that this happens to be one of them; that, in fact, there is nothing wrong with having the Chief Justice and the president of the university on this committee. That is the issue we have here tonight. There is nothing wrong with it; so, if it is not broken, why is the government attempting to fix it?

CHAIR: Order, please!

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: 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: 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'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

CHAIR: The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

CHAIR: The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 70, An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

CHAIR: Bill 70 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

We are going to move into Committee debate on Bill 42. I know we were doing this last week, but the Opposition House Leader had asked if we could hold because the Leader of the Opposition had some questions related to An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act, so we will move into Committee stage debate on Bill 42, An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act.

CHAIR: Bill 42, An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act." (Bill 42)

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am just going to have a few words. Actually, I was finished last week when the Minister of Finance brought something to my attention that I did not know was in this bill, and if he had sat down and was quiet like his House Leader wanted him to be, we would not be discussing it tonight, I say to the minister.

This piece of legislation, I say to the minister -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: No need for the Minister of Finance to get all hot and bothered under the collar about it now. I notice that your House Leader pulled it off the table as soon as he heard you say it. He said: We will put that away for another day, now, and hope that the Opposition forgets about it. Anyway, we don't forget about it, I say to the minister.

It is my understanding that Thomas Development, which runs the golf course in Pippy Park, is now going to be taken under the Pippy Park Commission and not act as a separate entity. We discussed the merits of doing that last week, and one of the questions that I asked the minister was why he was doing it. One of the answers that he gave me was, because Thomas Development was a not-for-profit organization and, as a result, they could not apply for government funding, and apply to ACOA and things like that to get government funding for the golf course up there.

I say to the minister, he should go back and check his facts on that because I think, if he were to check, he would find out that the actual clubhouse up there was built for approximately $500,000 and, if I am not mistaken, a large portion of that money came from the federal government, so they are, indeed, eligible for government funding, I say to the Minister of Finance. I do not mind pointing that out to him, just to show that he is not always right, because we, on this side, do not believe that he is right most of the time. I would like for him to address that issue later on.

In talking about that golf course falling back under the Pippy Park Commission, the thing that concerned me is that this golf course might eventually become privatized. Because me, personally, I do not want to see the golf course privatized; but, more importantly, I do not want to see any portion of Pippy Park privatized, because he was around, and I think most people opposite were around, when they tried to put that highway, the Outer Ring Road, through Pippy Park, and there was a lot of fuss in the town, in the City of St. John's, and I guess throughout the Province, those who have used Pippy Park, about that. There were a lot of people opposed to seeing the road driven right through the centre of what was considered, I guess, by a lot of people in the City of St. John's, as being a prized asset, you know, where people can go and walk their dogs. They can go for strolls and, basically, you do not appear to be in a city. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is the only park like it in the country. It is a beautiful park, and if anyone has had the opportunity to go up to the campground in Pippy Park, you would swear that you were out in the country. I do not think there is another city in North America that has a park like that right in the centre of the city whereby you go there and you camp.

I know my colleague, the Member for Port de Grave, does it quite often when the House is open in the spring and the summer. He camps there and comes to the House of Assembly. He thinks - and anyone who has had the opportunity to go up there, you would think you were in the woods. You know, you certainly do not know that you are in the middle of the city. You have that outdoor feel but you can be anywhere in the city within five minutes.

I was questioning the minister about the possibility of privatization of a portion of that park, that being the golf course. At first, he said that he did not have any intentions of doing it; but, then, when he would not sit down and be quiet, he let something blurt out right at the end of his speech. With that, the Government House Leader jumped up and said we are going to defer debate on that until another day.

Actually, I thought that it was going to be passed through the House of Assembly when I was in Labrador on Thursday, because I figured that he was hopeful that would happen because no one else questioned him on this privatization of parts of the park. I figured when I was in Labrador, along with the Premier and a few others on Thursday, that this bill was gone through without question, but I am glad that the Government House Leader saw fit to leave it there.

When I asked him about privatizing the park, here is what he said: We have no intention of going out and turning it over to private hands. A good sentence: We have no intention of going out and turning it over to private hands - but just listen to what he said right after that. If anybody wants it, and they want to make a proposal to us, to the government, that will be entertained. Then he goes on: I see the value in maintaining a public golf course, but I am not sure if I see the value if we have to keep pumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into it. If the day arrives, give them a chance to operate - that is private enterprise. Give them a chance to operate. Give them a chance to restructure it up there, and use some of the entities and so on that they did not have before.

That sounds pretty close to privatization, I say to the Minister of Finance. There is no guarantee in this piece of legislation that Pippy Park - at least the golf course portion of Pippy Park - will not be turned over to private hands. I say to the minister, that is the start of the slippery slope to privatization; because, once you get a private operator into the golf course up there on the hill, what is to stop, I say to the minister, a private operator going in and running the campground? What is to stop a private operator from going in and running the entire Pippy Park? That concerns me because, once you get a private operator going in there, if you start with something that is a public facility, as it is today, owned by the Pippy Park Commission and the people of this city and the Province, I would say, once you start getting private operators in there operating little portions of it, I think we are on the slippery slope of that becoming privatized. Because, after a year or two, once that is in operation under private hands, whether it be the golf course or the campground facility, or the walking trails, we always know what happens. We see fee increases, just like you did last year when you privatized, for all intents and purposes, the snowmobile trails across the Province, and the T'Railway across the Province, because now, all of a sudden, you have to pay $70 or $80 to put your skidoo on what used to be the railroad track, where people had the free go, wherever they wanted to go on it, and never paid a cent.

I say to the minister, it really and truly scares me that you are going to start privatizing, or at least asking for proposals to operate, a golf course, and what that might entail down the road. So, if the minister would like to stand up first of all and explain, first and foremost, how a facility or an entity could not apply for and gain federal government assistance, which they actually did on the clubhouse - and I think that he probably knows it himself. If he doesn't, he should check with his Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, because it used to fall under that portfolio up until he took it over this year. First, I would like for him to explain to us how they are not eligible for federal government funding when the federal government funding was a big part of the clubhouse they have up there. I would also like for him to explain how he is not going to privatize something when, in his very next sentence, he talks about: Well, if someone wants to come forward with a proposal to do exactly that, then that will be entertained by government.

If you are not going to do it, just say categorically right up front that will never happen and it will not be entertained by government. When someone says it is going to be entertained by government, that means we will look at it. Why waste people's time and energy and money, I say to the minister, in putting forward a proposal if it is not going to be entertained - but you did actually say it on page 1982 on November 24, just last week.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly will answer the question.

Number one, in 2004, Thomas Development Corporation had requested that they collapse that. They wanted to get out of it because they would run up hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, and they wanted to get out of the corporation and did not want to continue. They came to government and asked if we could do that and remove them.

In order to remove Thomas Development Corporation, which the shareholders of that were private individuals out there, we were proposing to set up a subsidiary of Pippy Park that will now be run by Pippy Park directly as a subsidiary and it will be encompassed as a public golf course within the parameters of Pippy Park, and run by the board of Pippy Park. They had not paid $250,000 a year for a number of years. There were some of the management fees written off the past two years, and there was about $500,000 in debt up to that time, from 2001-2005, that had been built up as being owing to government.

On top of all of that, government had invested over $3 million in this since 1987, and also into Thomas Development they put $785,000 in building the clubhouse. There was a loan on that clubhouse that has been paid off, but there are other costs being incurred. As of now, the loan on the clubhouse is paid off but there are significant others, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, still owed, in debt on their credit now, not counting hundreds of thousands owed to Pippy Park. So, if Pippy Park wants to set up under a Pippy Park subsidiary, publicly owned, run by a board that is chaired by a member of the Pippy family, has a representative of Memorial University on it, the landowners, city hall and all others on this, it will continue to be run as a public golf course. Government is not doing this in any way to privatize a golf course.

I cannot speak to down the road in the future what will ever happen. Here is where we are trying to go with it. Our intention is to run this as a public course, and to continue that. We are setting up a structure under Pippy Park. Pippy Park has no authority to borrow now, so three things we are doing in this bill. Number one, we are giving Pippy Park authority to borrow. So, if they want to go out and access federal money, or money from other sources, go to ACOA, they might get grants or loans, or a combination, that could cut down on the cost into that public park so they can enhance it.

They have identified about $2.1 million in enhancements to Pippy Park that could be needed. Obviously, that is not going to happen without - first of all, they have to have a business plan, get Cabinet approval, and areas they can make money there: enhancing the trailer park, increasing its overflow, and getting services. Parks collect fees, yes, and they provide services. If you enlarge that, or enhance that, you have the ability to be able to enhance that park.

One of the commitments, when I spoke with an individual, I proposed Mr. Pippy to go Chair of Pippy Park, a gentleman I know who probably has no political affiliation - certainly, I have never known him to be involved in any way with our party, ever. I cannot say if he has a political affiliation; I did not ask him - to appoint that person as Chair of this park because he is interested in the integrity and development of this park, in preserving it in the Pippy name it was given, to ensure that it is there for the future recreation and enjoyment of people. That is one purpose of this.

The number two purpose of this is that we want to set up a subsidiary because the people of Thomas Development want to get out of it. There was so much debt, trying to manage it, they did not want to deal with it, so we are putting up a structure.

There is another aspect to do it; it is to deal with enforcement. Like the Forestry Act now, and I think the Wildlife Act, they also have functions to allow peace officers or people to enforce it. They have no authority now, other than what you may give to an RCMP or RNC officer within the city to do it, so they want to be able to enforce the bylaws of Pippy Park, for which there was no authority to do it. That is the purpose of it.

Absolutely, we are not going out to privatize the park there. Whether it will happen in the future, some time down the road, I do not know, but we do want it to try and break even. We are giving Pippy Park four hundred a year, which (inaudible) to three fifty this year. We have allowed sales of land to enhance and operate that to the tune of in the millions of dollars over the past while. We want to preserve and enhance the integrity of that park area, to run it under Pippy Park. That is input from Memorial University, appoint someone to the board; the City of St. John's appoint someone to the board; the land owners appoint someone to the board; the Pippy family appoint someone. I recommended an additional one from the Pippy family to chair that, Mr. Ian Pippy who chairs it. They want to preserve the integrity of that park there in the future, and that is what we are intending to do with this. It has nothing to do with privatization, absolutely nothing. You could privatize it, if you want to, without any of this, but that is not the intent.

I did say, yes, if they want to put in a plan or if they want to put in a proposal, government will entertain it. I am not going to say, if someone puts in a plan, government will throw it in the garbage. Maybe they will. I am not saying they are not. Maybe that is the decision they will make, to throw it in the garbage, but we are not looking there. That is not our plan, I can tell you. We want to operate it as a public course, and plans are made for next year. There is even, I think, sales out already for the public course for next year if anybody wanted to buy advance rounds before Christmas and that.

That is the purpose of it, that is the intent, absolutely nothing else. Some changes next year or the year after, who knows? I will stand up and tell you the truth on that, and that is the absolute truth on this issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I found out one thing here tonight, Mr. Chairman, that there appears to be a distinction between the truth and the absolute truth with this Minister of Finance, and that is a scary thought. That is a scary thought.

I say to the minister, as I said to his colleague, the Government House Leader, when you were standing: Just watch and see if he answers either of the two questions I asked. I think that he would have to stand, along with the Minister of Human Resources, and say the same thing.

The first thing I talked to you about was the statement that you made in the House last week that, under this new arrangement with Thomas Development falling under the Pippy Park Commission, they would then be eligible for federal government funding.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I say to the minister -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: - he said they were not eligible for that before. That is not correct, I say to the minister. They were eligible for funding before from the federal government, and if he would check the books he would find that the clubhouse up in Pippy Park golf course was, indeed, paid for, a fair part of it, by the federal government, under some form of federal government department.

The other one is, I have no problem whatsoever with turning it over to the Pippy Park Commission, the golf course. In fact, I think probably they asked you to do it. They probably asked you to do it, and I have the greatest of respect for the Pippy family. Look what they gave this town and, indeed, this Province. They should be honoured. They should be looked upon, or looked to, for the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I happen to know Mr. Ian Pippy myself, a very honourable person. If it was simply passing over this to that commission, and those who operate it up there, I would not be standing here tonight asking you a question, but you made it sound like all of this was going into the hands of the Pippy Park Commission, and the Pippy Park Commission were going to have the final say on it all.

I say to the minister, if all of this is going to fall under the auspices of the Pippy Park Commission, and if it is an independent board or operation outside of government, I would not have a problem with it. What really frightens me is that, when asked the question about privatization, you do not say that will be up to the Pippy Park Commission. In fact, what you said, when asked the question, is this: If anybody wants it, and they want to make a proposal to us, the government, we will entertain it - not the Pippy Park Commission. That is what frightens me, I say to the minister. I would rather have Mr. Ian Pippy and the Pippy Park Commission make that decision rather than Mr. Finance Minister and his Cabinet. I would far more like that.

MR. SULLIVAN: I would, too. That is (inaudible).

MR. REID: I say to the minister, if that is what you want, why don't you write it into the piece of legislation you have there in front of you? Because, right now, that decision rests with you and the Premier, and the government of this Province, as to whether or not that portion of the park would be privatized. If not, then why would you use these words: make the proposal to government and we will entertain it. Not saying make the proposal to the Pippy Park Commission and they will entertain it. That is what scares me, I say to the Finance Minister, the fact that this government will entertain it.

Knowing how he feels about a bit of money, because it is all about dollars and cents, you are doing all of this to save dollars and cents. It scares me, because we could possibly see an American flag flying on the top of the hill on the clubhouse one of these days if the right proposal comes to you, I say to the Minister of Finance, and it is the best one and it has the most dollars. That is what scares me, because I am certain that Mr. Ian Pippy and his family certainly would not want to see it happen up there.

That is what scares me, I say to the minister, the fact that you and your government are going to be responsible for entertaining proposals. The fact that you said it last week, or the fact that there are people out there listening to us talking about it tonight, I would not be surprised if you do not already have a few proposals for Pippy Park, the golf course in Pippy Park, whether it be for a golf course or anything else. That is what scares me, the fact that it is not an independent commission, independent of government, a commission that would make a judgement or a decision based on what is best for the park and what is best for the people. Having watched you for the past ten or eleven years in the House of Assembly, I know what makes you tick and it is the bottom line.

Sometimes you have to pay for some recreation, some park space, and some of the better things in life that you do not and cannot attach a dollar value to for not only us but for generations to come. There is nothing that I would want to see less than a portion or all of Pippy Park privatized or sent out to the public sector to operate concessions, golf courses, campgrounds and walking trails, because that is the jewel in St. John's, as far as I am concerned, along with the walking trails that were put there by the Johnson Foundation, another great family in this city, and I certainly would not want to see anything happen to either of these foundations, whether it be the Pippy Park Commission that was donated by the Pippy family, or the Johnson family in the donations that they have done around this city, and the wonderful work they have done.

Mr. Chairman, I say to the Minister of Finance, every time he opens his mouth he scares me even more. I say, if you want to make that truly independent, stick it under the Pippy Park Commission and change the legislation so that you and the Premier will not decide one of these days that the dollar is better than that park space.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

CHAIR: Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 through 40.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 40 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 through 40 are carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 40 inclusive, carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission 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 42, An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

CHAIR: Bill 42 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Committee debate on Bill 61, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.

CHAIR: Order, please!

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act." (Bill 61)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Chairman, again I rise and speak against this bill.

As I stated earlier, I feel that this bill, the abolition of this bill, is another attempt by government to take away power from the people, the input from the people in the various communities. As I stated earlier, we have lost school boards, we have lost hospital boards, we have been reduced around this Province. The people, especially in rural parts of this Province, have lost most input if not all input into the things that affect their communities.

There is another example here of a senior citizen, who has been cleared by a doctor, having to wait and appear before court. If there is something that the registrar disagrees with, or some confusion between what the doctor says and what the registrar says, the only recourse for this particular senior is to go to court.

As I stated earlier, the waiting periods in this Province for court dates are long in most cases. Unless there is some sense that there is going to be a special Trial Division set up to handle these cases, a special day on the docket to have this in effect, I think there is no reason to have this particular abolition occur here in this Province. The status quo is the best way to go.

I do not know what the motives are for this government. Who pays the extra costs, I say to the Government House Leader, when a person has to go down and make an appeal? Who pays the cost for a lawyer in this particular case?

The whole notion of forcing a person to appear in court to appeal a decision of the registrar - suppose there is a young person who has a job in Alberta and needs their licence reinstated because of some minor infraction or some mistake that the registrar has made. Do they have to wait if the registrar still disagrees with what happens?

Mr. Chairman, this may appear to be a trivial bill, but, at the end of it, there are some implications here that are not clear at this point in time. Mr. Chairman, that is why I speak in opposition to this bill.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just have one question for the minister on the abolition of the Driver's Licence Suspension Review Board. I wonder if he could explain why this is not going to be done in Provincial Court versus the Trial Division, which is the Supreme Court, because most people who would be involved in an appeal of this nature are not used to a court setting.

I am very much afraid that when people go to an appeal for something of this nature they will find the setting itself, of the Supreme Court, very intimidating, and maybe too intimidating for them to really do a good job on their appeal.

I am just wondering why would it not be in the Provincial Court moreso than the Supreme Court or Trial Division, because provincial courts are a lot more informal and more sensitive to the needs of this nature? I am just wondering if the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. COLLINS: Yes, exactly, but for something of this nature where there is a change, why that was not looked at, where the provincial courts could be given the jurisdiction to hear this where it would be a lot less intimidating for people who have to go through this process.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I think the short answer of the question is what both my colleagues, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Minister of Health just said, is that the Trial Division is an appeal court, provincial court is not. It is a logical place in terms of if there is an appeal to be made to a decision that has been made based upon, say, for medical reasons - that a person's licence has been suspended because of medical reasons and they want to appeal that, or if they decide they want to appeal it, then it would naturally go to the court that is specified in the act for the reasons that I have outlined.

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 6.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 6 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive is carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 6 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 Highway Traffic 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 61, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 61 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: 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: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bills 66, 67, 72, 70, 42 and 61 carried without 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 Bills 66, 67, 72, 70, 42 and 61 passed without amendments.

When shall this report be received?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, by leave.

When shall the said bills be read a third time?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, by leave.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again presently by leave.

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

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

I move third reading of Bill 42, An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 42, An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act, be read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 42 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 Pippy Park Commission Act. (Bill 42)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 42, An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act 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 Pippy Park Commission Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 42)

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

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

I move third reading of Bill 61, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 61, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, be now read a third time.

Is it is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 61 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 Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 61)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 61, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, 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 Highway Traffic Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 61)

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

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

I move third reading of Bill 66, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 66, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Health Care -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is an oversight on my part in moving third reading. I know that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General has given an undertaking to his colleague to find out some information, so I wish to remove the movement of third reading of Bill 66 because it was an oversight on my part. I was advised of that and had inadvertently forgotten about it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader to move third reading of another bill.

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

I move third reading of Bill 67, An Act To Amend The Public Service Commission Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it moved and seconded that Bill 67, An Act To Amend The Public Service Commission Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 67 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 Commission Act. (Bill 67)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 67, An Act To Amend The Public Service Commission Act, 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 Commission Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 67)

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

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

I move third reading of Bill 70, An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland and Labrador Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 70, An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland and Labrador be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 70 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I would like to take this opportunity to express what I think is a rush to judgement, by government in this case, in proposing these amendments whereby they are striking the Chief Justice of the Province and the President of Memorial University from the advisory committee that selects the recipients for the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Government House Leader talked about - again, I have asked, and my colleagues over here, the Member for Grand Bank and the Leader of the Opposition have asked the Government House Leader to give us a reason why. We still have not heard a reason why. He has gotten on his feet a couple of times, we still have not heard a reason. What I cannot understand is if that type of system is okay for the Order of Canada, why is it not okay for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

I say to the Government House Leader, he talks about legislation in other parts of Canada and leaves the impression that: well, that is fine, we are only doing what others are doing. I would also bring to the attention of the Government House Leader and the House and the people, that our Order of Canada has as its Chair, the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of Canada. Now, if it is okay for the Order of Canada to have the Chief Justice of Canada as the Chair of their committee - and they have a lot of people on it besides that. The hon. Thomas Berger, a lawyer and former minister of the federal Cabinet; people who are known in the arts, Karen Kain, for example, a recipient herself of the Order of Canada. There is nothing wrong with those suggestions that have been made.

Lo and behold! Who else is on the selection committee for the Order of Canada? Ms Bonnie M. Patterson, Chairperson of the Board of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. Now that seems pretty much like we have in our act - which is considered the highest award in our country, the Order of Canada - and who should they have chairing their board? The Chief Justice of Canada. Who else do they have on their committee? The Chairman of the Board of Associations of Universities and Colleges of Canada. It is good enough for the Order of Canada. It is good enough for all 27 million to 30 million people in Canada to have these two independent bodies and agencies represented, which we have had for years and years. Likewise, the Governor General is the Chancellor of the Order of Canada, the same as our Lieutenant-Governor is the Chancellor, but it is not good enough for us.

This government, in its wisdom, has decided that we are getting rid of these two persons on our advisory committee, and no reason given. The question has been asked - not once, but several times here today - and we still have no answer why. I think this piece of information begs the question even more: Why? If it is good enough for all of us in Canada and the Order of Canada - and that is certainly a prestigious and honourable enough award, the highest you can get in our country - why is it not good enough to have a similar type of situation when it comes to our Province's highest award? No, this government in its wisdom decides we do not need the president of our university. We do not need the Chief Justice of our Province there. We are going to have all Premier appointed people on our committee.

In fact, if you look at consistency in the government saying: We want to change that section of the act, section 12, which currently says: Clerk of the Executive Council, president of the university and Chief Justice of the Province. They do not even go all the way and say scrap those three that are in the legislation. We do not need any of those three. Let's just take them all out and let's put in two nominees or former recipients of the Order. If that is the intent, you would have seen them all scraped. But, no, you did not see them all scraped. There is one person left on there of the three. It is not the president of the university. It is not the Chief Justice. Who is the only one that is left in there? The Clerk of the Executive Council who is a member by virtue of his or her office. Now, it is good enough for him to be there by virtue of his or her office but, lo and behold, the Clerk of the Executive Council is left there. My, my! Who gives him his job or decides whether he goes to work tomorrow morning? Whose pleasure is he at? He is at the pleasure of none other than the Premier. Even this sham - and I will go so far as to say sham, because it is a sham to suggest that two individuals, who are members of the Order, shall be put on there if the Order itself does not have any say in who their representatives are going to be. Who are going to be the representatives of the Order that is chosen? Lo and behold! The Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Premier.

So, it is okay to keep the Clerk of the Council there who is under the Premier's thumb when it comes to pleasure and whether they have a job or not and who fills the position. It is okay to have two people there who are recipients because the Premier picks them. It is okay to leave the act as it is when it comes to the other four individuals because the Premier picked them. But, no, sir, the only two persons who have any say in our Province as to who should be recipients of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador, who might be seen as impartial and not subject to any political whim, for example, the Chief Justice - lo and behold, that he might be subject to somebody's orders - or the president of the university and they are out the door.

I say again to this government, I do not think you pattern yourself after anybody else in the country. You certainly haven't patterned yourself after the country because this country, the Order of Canada, prides itself and has prided itself for many years in having the input of two very esteemed positions as part of the Order of Canada Advisory Committee, and it is still the same today: Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada and Bonnie Patterson, Chairperson of the Board of Associations of Universities and Colleges of Canada. I say again to this government, it shows absolute arrogance when you do not give a reason for why you are doing something and, particularly, when other examples in our very own country show that that system exists. It exists well and that is the whole purpose of it, because we are selecting something that should be absolutely untarnished and free from any suggestion that you politicized it. What are we doing here? We are getting rid of what is the vestiges on that advisory committee which suggests that it is absolutely impartial, and we are getting rid of it. We are making a mockery of it in our own way. There is absolutely no justification for it.

I say again to the Government House Leader - this is my final opportunity to be able to say it here in third reading. I say again this is wrong. This is not proper. This is not supportable. If the Order of Canada is good enough to have the Chief Justice as part of it and the head of the universities, there is no reason why it is not good enough for our Province. There has not been a reason given here other then the fact that the government says: We want to do it. Well, unfortunately I do not think that is the way the system was intended to operate, simply because we want to do it. It is fine to say we are going to do it. It is fine to say we have the numbers to dictate that it be done and that is what will happen here, there is no doubt because the government has the numbers to make this be done, but that does not make it right.

I say to the government again, if there is ever an opportunity - all be it this is not a budget issue and this is maybe not something that is earth shattering. It is very important when it comes to perceptions by the public and perceptions to people outside of this Province and perceptions by the recipients themselves, that they are not subject to political whim. That is what makes it important that this be done right and that is why it is important that these two positions stay there, irregardless of who is filling the positions. The positions ought to be there.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know it is unusual to have an extensive debate at third reading in the House but I just would like to add a few comments based on the new information just now provided by the Opposition House Leader into the relations of the Order of Canada.

The Order of Canada is recognized perhaps as the model for these kinds of honour systems throughout the country and Newfoundland and Labrador just got onboard a couple of years ago, belatedly, in establishing our own recognition for people who have made significant contributions to the Province, to the arts, to the cultural life of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have seen examples such as that recently of Ms Susan Knight being given an Order of Newfoundland and Labrador based on the recognition for the work that she has done in developing choral music in Newfoundland and Labrador and establishing the Festival 500. Recently, her choir won a very prestigious award in Spain. We have seen the recipients being of sterling quality, and no doubt will continue to be so. We would certainly hope so.

As was indicated earlier in my speech, and others, the prestige of the award is also related to the impartiality and the perceived systematic impartiality of the board, and to see that the Order of Canada has, as its Chair, the Supreme Court of Canada Justice Beverley McLachlin and people on that board, some of whom are Order of Canada recipients - in fact, I have just been given a list of the people who are on the board, and what we see is: Alex Himelfarb, Clerk of the Privy Council - well, that would be equivalent to the Clerk of our Executive Council here - the hon. Thomas Berger, O.C., a recipient of the Order of Canada; Ruth Miriam Goldbloom, O.C., Order of Canada; the next person, Tom Jackson, Order of Canada; Karen Kain, Commander of the Order of Canada. In fact, all of the rest of the individuals, aside from - and this is very interesting. There are, apparently, three ex officio members of the Advisory Board: The Chief Justice of Canada; Mr. Alex Himelfarb, the Clerk of the Privy Council; and the Chair of the Board of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. All the rest are recipients of the Order of Canada, some of whom are members, some of whom are O.C., some of them Commanders of the Order. This is very interesting because it is the position that we advance as to where we would like to see all of the members of the Advisory Council being members of the Order themselves; and, except in Canada, they have the three ex officio members which we currently have the equivalent thereof, the Chief Justice of Newfoundland and Labrador, the head of the only university in the Province, and the Clerk of the Executive Council.

While the notion of including, for the first time, recipients of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador to the board is a very positive one, the exclusion of two of the three honourary appointees or Advisory Council members, the president of the university and the Chief Justice of Newfoundland and Labrador, is, I think, a mistake.

Now, whatever attitude or thinking may be present about the current holders of those offices, it is a question of how - this is intended to be a permanent piece of legislation that will establish the ongoing prestige and place of this Order, the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador, for many, many decades to come. It is the office themselves that are the issue here, not the individuals, and I do not want to cast any aspersions on what - as the Government House Leader said, I do not want impugn any motives of the members opposite in proposing to get rid of the Chief Justice and the president of the university from this prestigious Order of Newfoundland and Labrador, but what we are moving to is, we are moving to a system where all of the advisory board members are appointed by the - the polite term is Lieutenant-Governor in Council. It is, in layman's terms, the Cabinet. The Cabinet appoints every single member of this Advisory Council, including the Clerk of the Executive Council. So, we will not have a sufficiently detached advisory board by merely replacing the two ex officio members with two more Cabinet appointees who happen to be recipients of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think it is very unfortunate that government has chosen to take this step at this early stage in the life of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I think they will live to regret it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition Leader.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will not be long because my colleague, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, and the Leader of the NDP have already spoken on this and I have to myself tonight.

This government prides itself on being open, accountable and transparent. Yet, we have been here tonight and I guess there have been at least four of us on our feet, most of us twice, asking the minister, the Government House Leader, who brought this bill forward, why he is taking the Chief Justice and the president of Memorial University off the selection committee that establishes who should be the recipient of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador.

My colleague, the Opposition House Leader, just presented a piece of paper here in the House, a document here in the House, that says that on the Order of the Canada, which ours was modelled after some two or three years ago when we established this - the Liberal government established it - on that, the first person mentioned there is the Chief Justice of Canada. Then you have the Chair of the Association of Universities for the country. It is also on there. That is what we modelled it after, Mr. Speaker, and you were sitting in the House at the time. You were not occupying that Chair, but you were on this side of the floor. If I am not mistaken, there wasn't even a debate on the composition of that board, that selection committee, because it was non-political when you talk about the Chief Justice of the Province and the president of Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador, which, I am sure, you cannot tell me what his political stripe is, and I know that I cannot. He is an honourable person, but leave the individuals out. It is the position they occupy rather than the person who is in it.

Like I said earlier, I would find it much more of an honour to receive the award if I was selected by a group of individuals who included the Chief Justice, the president of Memorial University, and two or three of those who were already inducted into the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador - but to pride themselves on being transparent and accountable. The House Leader already said, we are the government. The government has made a decision, as if to say: Sit down Opposition, no need of further discussion.

He is right to one extent, because we all know, regardless of what we say on this side of the floor tonight, we can prove to him in spades that he is wrong and this should not be done, because he has not given the reason why they are doing it yet, except that they want to add more inductees, those who have already been awarded the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador, to the committee. We said, add all you want but at least leave the two there who have some independence, who are not already selected by the Premier. Leave the two who are not already selected by the Premier, they being the Chief Justice and the president of the university, or whoever may occupy that position in future years; but, no, the Government House Leader, who presented the bill, I guess, on behalf of the Premier - because I doubt very much if anyone over there in the back bench or in the Cabinet came up with the idea that we need to remove the Chief Justice and the president of Memorial University from the list. I am sure the Minister of Justice did not put it forward, for some reason, that the Chief Justice should not be on the list. I am sure the past Minister of Education and the current Minister of Education would not want to sort of besmirch the character of the president of the university by having him removed from the board.

Then, to say you are open and accountable when we cannot get an answer to why they are removing these two individuals. All we hear from the minister who brought it in for the Premier is, because we want to put a couple of inductees on the board to replace them. Yet, they leave the Clerk of the Privy Council, Clerk to the Cabinet, who is hand-picked, and his heir, written right into his contract, or her contract, at the pleasure of the Premier. At the pleasure of the Premier.

For those of you out there who are watching this proceeding tonight in the House of Assembly, at the pleasure of the Premier means: You are gone whenever I feel like it. If you are the Premier and you want to get rid of that person, you are gone.

AN HON. MEMBER: Debbie Fry (inaudible).

MR. REID: Debbie Fry was the Clerk of the Privy Council. The Premier took her out of that, when he came in, and put her into the Department of Health as Deputy Minister of the Department of Health. When he removed the Member for Topsail as the Minister of Health, what did he do next? Not only did he remove Ms Fry from the Clerk and put her over into the Department of Health; he sent her walking out the door.

I say to the member and the minister: Why would he insist on leaving someone there who is at the pleasure of the Premier? If you want an unbiased opinion, you do not put someone there who is there at the pleasure of the Premier because my understanding would be, if you are there at the pleasure of the Premier, you do the Premier's bidding. If not, you are gone.

If he wants to say that there is no room on the selection committee for the president of the university and the Chief Justice, then why would he leave the Clerk of the Executive Council there? - the Clerk to the Cabinet, the person who is going to speak on behalf of the Premier, do what the Premier tells he or she to do, or else they are removed because they are no longer there at the pleasure of the Premier, or the Premier is not going to be very well pleasured if his chief Clerk is doing something that is opposed to his views.

I say to the minister, the Government House Leader, when you talk about openness, transparency and accountability, these are very shallow words coming from the mouths of those opposite.

I ask the minister again: Withdraw the bill. Put the Chief Justice and the president of the university back where they rightfully belong, back where you sat right here or right there a few short years ago and agreed to have them there because of their positions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 70, An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act, be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called.

Ring the bells and call in the members.

MR. SPEAKER: Are the Whips ready?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ready.

MR. SPEAKER: Those in -

MS THISTLE: He said okay; come on in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Under the Orders that we have, once the Bar of the House has been put in place, no member is allowed to enter or to leave the Chamber. Therefore, the Speaker would have to rule that members who are not in the Chamber when the Bar is placed - the Chair called to see if Whips were ready and the answer I got was that they were. Therefore the Chair, under our Orders, would have to rule that no member is allowed to enter or to leave the Chamber after that unless there is some other direction I would get from the House leadership.

All those in favour of the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Williams; Mr. Edward Byrne; Mr. Rideout; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. Taylor; Mr. Tom Marshall; Mr. Hedderson; Mr. Sullivan; Mr. Shelley; Mr. O'Brien; Ms Burke; Mr. Jim Hodder; Mr. Wiseman; Mr. Denine; Mr. French; Mr. Harding; Mr. Young; Mr. Hunter; Mr. Jackman; Ms Johnson; Mr. Ridgley; Mr. Skinner; Mr. Forsey.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Reid, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Langdon, Ms Jones, Ms Thistle, Ms Foote, Mr. Harris.

Mr. Speaker, twenty-three ayes and eight nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion on third reading carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act. (Bill 70)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 70, An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act, 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 Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

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

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

I move third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act. (Bill 72)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 72, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 72 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act. (Bill 72)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 72, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act, 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 Fish Inspection Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

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

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

There has been a fairly significant body of work done today, so I would like to now put the adjournment motion forward until tomorrow at 1:30 of the clock.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that this House do now adjourn until tomorrow, Tuesday, December 6, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

All those in agreement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, December 6, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

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