MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for Trinity North; the hon. the Member for Bay of Islands; the hon. the Member for Port au Port; the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans; the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl; and the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Town of Clarenville and the Clarenville Heritage Society on the commissioning of the site of the first Transatlantic Telephone Cable, TAT-1, in Clarenville as an Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Milestone.

Mr. Speaker, this event marked the fiftieth anniversary of the commissioning of TAT-1, a very significant technological achievement which operated in Newfoundland from the years 1956 to 1978.

Mr. Speaker, in the previous year, 1955, the cable itself was pulled ashore in Clarenville. This deep-water portion of the system had two cables stretching from Oban, Scotland, to Clarenville, a distance of some 1,950 nautical miles. The remaining 271 nautical mile-long shallow-water section was a single cable from Clarenville to Sydney Mines in Nova Scotia which connected the line to mainland Canada. The first transatlantic telephone call was placed on September 25, 1956, by the U.K. postmaster to the Chairman of AT& T and the Minister of Transport in New York City.

Mr. Speaker, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers is a non-profit organization and is the world's leading professional association for the advancement of technology. It established the milestone program in 1983 to honour the significant achievements in the history of electrical and electronics engineering.

Currently, there are over sixty Milestones worldwide, three of which are located in Newfoundland, the third one being Clarenville this year. Previously, it was Signal Hill and Heart's Content.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members in this House today to join with me in congratulating the Town of Clarenville and the Clarenville Heritage Society in celebrating their part in this piece of communication history.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a constituent from my district, Johnathan Forward of Curling, who is a member of the Canadian University Biathlon Team.

Mr. Speaker, Johnathan is currently attending the University of Augustana in Alberta, working towards a Bachelor of Science Degree in Physical Education. Augustana is the only university in Canada with a Biathlon team, and Johnathan has recently been chosen to compete at the 2007 World University Games to be held in Torino, Italy, in January. He will also be competing at the Canada Winter Games in Whitehorse, Yukon, as a part of the Newfoundland and Labrador team.

Johnathan has competed in many provincial and national competitions in the past years and is looking forward to the tremendous opportunity to compete at such a high calibre international event and represent our Province and country.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in extending congratulations to Johnathan as he prepares for the 2007 World Competition and wish him every success in his future competitions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Miss Katrina Roxon of Kippens, in the District of Port au Port. She is presently in South Africa where approximately 550 athletes from fifty countries are expected to participate in the 2006 IPC swimming world championships. This event is one of the largest sports competitions for athletes with disabilities, after the Paralympic Games.

Katrina, at the age of thirteen, is the youngest in the Canadian team and one of the youngest in the world to make a national world championship swimming team.

Katrina has been swimming competitively since 1999 and holds numerous awards for her performances locally, nationally and internationally. Provincially, in 2005 she won the Margaret Davis Junior Athlete of the Year. That same year she was presented with the Canadian Paraplegic Award for athletic achievement. She also holds the following: 2005 Swimming with a Disability Canadian Records for the 50 and 200 metre breaststroke and the 200 metre butterfly. On the international level, she has participated in the U.S.A. Paralympics where she took the silver medal in 50 metre breaststroke, and bronze in the 200 metre breaststroke, 50 metre backstroke and 100 metre breaststroke.

Miss Roxon also competes in cross-country running where she won the gold medal in the Bay St. George Cross-Country Running Competition and bronze in the Hershey's Provincial Track and Field Meet.

Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that Miss Roxon was selected as Female Athlete of the Year for Stephenville for 2006.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members of the House to join with me in congratulating Miss Roxon and wishing her success in the competitions in South Africa.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to congratulate Val Elson of Grand Falls-Windsor, a cancer survivor, who is the new President of the Provincial Canadian Cancer Society Board of Directors.

Ms Elson has been involved with the Canadian Cancer Society for seven years, starting after her own diagnosis of cancer, which resulted in her losing part of her leg. Her personal experience with cancer has played a significant role in her involvement with the Canadian Cancer Society and she has been a strong advocate for cancer patients and their families in Central Newfoundland and across this Province.

Mr. Speaker, Val Elson received her presidential appointment this past summer at the society's annual general meeting. As provincial president, she is Newfoundland and Labrador's voice on the national board of directors and the national council.

Since her appointment, Val has been working diligently on the provincial cancer care strategy, which is being developed to promote early detection and to find ways to reduce cancer rates in this Province and she has chaired the working group of cancer patients' committee and developed a report on cancer control. At the national level, she is involved with the development of the national cancer control strategy as well.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating Val Elson on her appointment as the new President of the Provincial Canadian Cancer Society Board of Directors, and wish her well in her upcoming challenge.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I would like to pay tribute to four distinguished individuals from Mount Pearl who were inducted into the Mount Pearl Sports Hall of Fame.

Mr. Speaker, each of these individuals are great volunteers in our community and their leadership and qualities are next to nothing.

Mr. Speaker, we have Mr. Wayne Andrews - Wayne is very well known for his dedication to Campia Gymnastics within Mount Pearl and province-wide. Through Wayne's leadership, he inspired everyone working with him to remember, that we volunteer for kids to ensure fairness for everyone.

Second, Mr. Harry Bartlett - Harry has been involved in sports in Mount Pearl as a player, coach and builder in the sports of baseball and hockey for the past thirty years. He has held various executive positions in both associations and he has demonstrated he cares deeply about the community in which he lives and works.

Next, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ian Graham - Ian has been involved in Mount Pearl through the sports of hockey, soccer, baseball for over nineteen years. He has held various coaching positions and he has progressed to serve as an executive member in all associations. His commitment to working with youth in our community is to be admired.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have Everett Russell - Everett is to be honoured for the tireless work and energy he has given to Special Olympics in Mount Pearl. He has held various executive positions with this association and his leadership extends beyond the confines of our city. He is a member of the provincial Board of Directors for the Special Olympics.

Mr. Speaker, all four inductees made substantial contributions to the development of sport in our city and Province. Their volunteer efforts are exemplary and I commend them.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members here today to join with me in congratulating them on their recent achievement.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to stand today and pay tribute to the AIDS Committee of Newfoundland and Labrador who held their first breakfast recognizing World AIDS Day on Friday, December 1, joining groups around the world who have been carrying on this practice for a number of years.

The AIDS Committee of Newfoundland and Labrador is a pan-provincial consumer-focused, non-profit organization that provides programs and services aimed at preventing HIV/AIDS and supporting persons living with and affected by HIV/AIDS. The staff and volunteers of AIDS Committee Newfoundland and Labrador work tirelessly to provide HIV prevention and Hepatitis C education services throughout the Province.

I was impressed at the breakfast with the courage of the speakers - two of whom were women from Zimbabwe and Lesotho who work directly with HIV/AIDS patients and their families.

I was especially impressed with Robyn Pardy, an HIV positive mother of two from St. John's who has joined the AIDS Committee of Newfoundland and Labrador in educating the public, especially young people, about HIV/AIDS. Ms Pardy's strength in the face of this disease is striking. She speaks openly and courageously about the disease, how she contracted it and the necessity to prevent it from spreading further. Such courage in the face of a disease that many still fear and misunderstand is an inspiration.

I ask all of my colleagues in the House to join with me in congratulating the staff and volunteers, especially Robyn Pardy, of AIDS Committee Newfoundland and Labrador on its new effort to promote education and public awareness of HIV/AIDS both in our Province and around the world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed with Statements by Ministers, I am sure all members would want me to welcome, in the public gallery, Mr. Barry Fleming, the Citizens' Representative designate who is in the gallery here to my right.

Welcome to our House, Mr. Fleming.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to congratulate the Aboriginal women's community on a very successful Aboriginal Women's Conference that took place November 23-26 of this year in Stephenville.

I had the pleasure of speaking at the event along with my colleague, Joan Burke, Minister of Education and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women. Justice officials and I also had the opportunity to take in some of the workshops and some of the sessions, and we would like to compliment the conference organizers on the outstanding agenda, specifically the presenters and the participants whom most certainly bolstered this year's conference theme, which was, "The Good Life for Aboriginal Women - Moving Forward Building Strength."

Mr. Speaker, after delivering my remarks, I engaged in a question and answer session followed by several individual meetings. The provision of family justice services in this Province was certainly a significant topic of discussion. Currently, the government is working on providing better family justice services outside of Corner Brook, Central and St. John's, and to expand these across the whole Island and Labrador.

The provision of family law services in Newfoundland and Labrador is not uniform across the Province; indeed, it has been described as a patchwork quilt. We have therefore made a request to the federal government for four new Unified Family Court Judges, including one for Labrador. Our government is committed to providing the ancillary services such as mediation, conciliation and education services, and did so with a $617,000 investment for these services in Budget 2006-2007. We have subsequently created eleven new permanent positions to ensure more children and families in more regions of the Province receive timely and effective mediation, counselling and education services.

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to receive feedback on this initiative and others that were implemented by this government, including the Family Violence Legislation, the Expansion of Victim Services and our Aboriginal Interpretation Strategy. Justice officials and I forged new relationships, and follow-up contacts have already been made with delegates for consultation purposes. We are currently working on ways to improve consultation and communication with the Aboriginal women's community. This diverse gathering, with its representatives from such varied parts of the Province, will help us as we strive to foster better relations and better responses.

Mr. Speaker, the Williams' government is committed to improving our relationships with Aboriginal communities, and I am personally determined to make the administration of justice more accessible and more compatible with Aboriginal cultures.

The late Ben Michel said to me once that all voices must be heard. The voice of Aboriginal women is critical, and it is a voice that my colleagues and I will be listening to.

I ask that all Members of the House of Assembly join with me in congratulating the Aboriginal women's community on another very successful conference.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

I was somewhat surprised to see that it wasn't the Minister for the Status of Women who would stand in her place and give us an update on the Aboriginal Women's Conference; but, then again, Mr. Speaker, I guess by the mere fact that she has chosen to once again omit women on the Opposition side of the House of Assembly from participating in any women's conferences that the government holds in the Province - I think I am probably the only woman in this Legislature who holds a card in an Aboriginal association in Newfoundland and Labrador, making me probably the only Aboriginal woman in the House of Assembly, and two years in a row the minister chooses not to invite me, my colleagues, or the woman who happens to be the official Leader of the NDP, to get involved in women's issues in the Province. So, Mr. Speaker, I give very little validity to anything that the Minister for the Status of Women would say, simply because her actions demonstrate anything otherwise.

Mr. Speaker, it wasn't only us who did not participate. This conference is a top-down approach by the minister and her department which omits to even engage participants. Like in Stephenville, the Bay St. George Status of Women Council was not involved in organizing this conference in Stephenville; in fact, had an invitation to the conference a week before it occurred and was told you could only attend certain sections of that conference. That is the kind of top-down approach to women's equality and women's issues -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MS JONES: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.

Has leave been granted?

MR. SULLIVAN: We will give her fifteen seconds, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has leave.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, fifteen seconds will give me an opportunity to put a plug into the government that, when they organize the Aboriginal Women's Conference from across Canada, that they do so ensuring that they have a venue - which they could find a venue to hold the Premiers' Conference of over 300 participants - that they find a venue to be able to host a conference that will be adequate and serve the needs and allow the women of the country to have a voice in issues that are relevant to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) withdraw leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been withdrawn.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy, and I do echo my colleague's comments with regard to my surprise at not receiving this from the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

I do want to say as well that I echo her comments with regard to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

I ask her to continue her commentary.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do want to say that, as a person who has had a long history of working in solidarity with Aboriginal persons in this Province, as the Leader of the NDP and as a woman sitting in this House, I believe that it would have been good if we could have had all women from the House of Assembly invited . From the work that I have done with Aboriginal people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

Has leave been granted?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As a woman who has been involved in solidarity work with Aboriginal women, I feel almost certain that if they had been asked about their openness to have all of the people in our Legislature present, all of the women present, so that they could hear what Aboriginal people have to say, Aboriginal women, have to say, I am sure they would have said they were open to having observers. They want us to hear their issues and, as leader of our party, I believe that everybody in this Province is my constituent and I think that I personally should have been there but I think that all women in the House should have been invited as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week we referenced an analysis that was conducted by the Department of Finance concerning the fibre optic deal. From our sources within that department who have seen this report, we have been advised by departmental officials that they were not favourable to the investment of $15 million into the fibre optic venture.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: If you have nothing to hide, and you want to be open and transparent and accountable, why is your government refusing to release this analysis?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question was asked in the House last Thursday - I think it was last Thursday - and asked again, and I will give the same exact answer again. When I heard about a report being done by my department, a financial analysis on this, and a report given, I was as surprised as anyone else. I went back and asked my officials: Was there any report done on this?

I was told that nothing any different on any proposal would move to Treasury Board and a recommendation go to Cabinet, that we do a financial input on any project coming from any department. We recommended - in fact, Treasury Board recommended - that there should be someone with expertise in the communications industry, and I think EWA was hired. We also recommended that some chartered accounting firm would be able to give an analysis or look at it, and I understand that EWA subcontracted a firm to do that and put the report back to the department.

That is the role that my department played in this process. With any proposal, when any financial thing comes to Treasury Board, it goes in the normal manner, nothing unique, nothing special, no special report on this. I have been informed that exactly the same process will be followed. Now, I do not know what they are talking about other than that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows there was an analysis done. It might not have been a report but there was an analysis done by your officials. That is the analysis we are asking for.

Mr. Speaker, from the information over the past several weeks regarding the fibre optic deal, what we can ascertain is that this Province is the largest partner of the consortium, putting in $15 million. As the largest partner, with the largest single investment, it would only go to reason that we would get most of the fibre optic strands, but apparently this is not the case.

I ask the Premier: Can you tell us what portion of that cable, or how many fibre optic strands, will be owned by the Province? Your Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development certainly could not tell the public last week when questioned about that.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the EWA report suggests, we will be pursuing an appropriate number of strands, given the amount of money that we are putting into this development. When we have finalized this arrangement, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, all of the information will be provided to the Auditor General, all of the information will be provided to the public.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, we will not be doing like they did in the past. We will not be investing multi-millions of dollars into a development and not having an asset whatsoever at the end of the day. Mr. Speaker, we will have an asset that can be used for the telecommunication needs of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and it will be used to lever further development of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That, Mr. Speaker, is what we are doing.

If they want me to go down through the monies that they put into the telecommunications industry over the period of time that they were in government, I will gladly lay it out for them, Mr. Speaker, and everybody can be the judge of who got the best deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are investing $15 million, and he said that later we will find out what is appropriate, how much we are going to get. He still cannot tell us when he has already signed onto a deal in principle for $15 million.

Mr. Speaker, last week Aliant was forced to circulate a memo to its employees correcting what they considered to be false information that the Premier and his minister were putting out there in the public. One of these involved the Premier's allegations on an Open Line show that Aliant is price gouging and involved in predatory pricing.

I ask the Premier: In light of this memo, do you still stand by your statement that Aliant is involved in unethical business practices, such as price gouging and predatory pricing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is incorrect, I did not say that.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In case the Premier has a memory lapse, I have his own words here on an Open Line show.

Mr. Speaker, another of the falsehoods that Aliant references in the memo is related to competitive rates and capacity on the existing fibre optic line across this Province. As a matter of fact, Aliant officials referenced the CRTC ruling which stated that competitiveness and capacity in the system is on par with the rest of Atlantic Canada.

I ask the Premier: Why do your attempts at justifying the $15 million investment to your friends and business associates contradict statements made by the CRTC?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised that Aliant have taken this approach. As the hon. member opposite knows, since 1994 Aliant have had over $200 million worth of contracts from the government, from the Liberal government. That is a lot of money. They have certainly had their lion's share of any business that was done by this government.

They are working within the rules of the CRTC, but there are tariffs. They are allowed to move between those tariffs as far as they can go, and they have moved to the top end of the tariffs. As a result, they are charging top rates. As a result, CONA is at a disadvantage, Memorial is at a disadvantage, Canarie is at a disadvantage, call centres are at a disadvantage, private business is at a disadvantage, and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is at a disadvantage. We are going to get significant benefits. How can you argue with the fact that we are going to get $400 million or $500 million worth of benefits out of that particular contract?

For Aliant to send out a letter to their employees that gets publicly circulated within minutes of them sending it out, that is a backroom (inaudible) that we are just not going to be part of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation so that we can hear both the question and the answer.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, the annual hunger count report prepared by the Canadian Association of Food Banks shows Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest per capita use of food banks and it also shows that demand for food bank services is increasing in this Province for the first time in years. Mr. Speaker, this report shows we have serious problems in the Province and they are getting worse, not better.

I ask the minister: What new initiatives will he undertake, based on the information released in this report?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Nobody likes to see the numbers we have seen in this latest report. I have seen the numbers over the last couple of days. It is nothing for any of us to be proud of. As a matter of fact, I would like to see the day when we do not see any food banks in this country and, indeed, this Province.

The fact of the matter is, and the member knows, in the Poverty Reduction Strategy which we released, the only second province in Canada to do so in this country, that we have taken initiatives to work on poverty. It is not going to come overnight. It is not simple. It is very complex. That is why we see those numbers rising up.

At the same time, if the member reads the Poverty Reduction Strategy - I know he has, and I know he agrees with a lot of the things that are in there - it is a step in the right direction. Is it going to solve everything and get these numbers down overnight? Absolutely not! But, Mr. Speaker, with partners that we partnered throughout this Province, with the different groups, they know that we are moving in the right direction and we will see these numbers come down.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, this government should wake up and realize that what they are doing is not enough. These are the unpleasant facts revealed of poverty in this Province, which this government seems to think they can solve with public relation exercises.

We have the highest per capita use of food banks. They are serving not only people without jobs but also the working poor. We have one of the highest rates of child poverty in the country. Twenty-three percent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not have enough disposable income to buy basic necessitates, and 32 per cent of single women households experience problems getting enough food.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the government: When are you going to realize the seriousness of this problem and start to deal with it as quickly as you did with unsolicited proposals from the Premier's friends?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The member would know if he has read the Poverty Reduction Strategy, which a lot of members have and a lot of groups have, Mr. Speaker - it is shocking to see those numbers up, I say to the hon. the member, but this government has taken initiatives in the amount of some $64 million in the right direction; the first time any government has ever taken this on in this Province, Mr. Speaker, and we are very proud of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: We could go on with a long list here today, Mr. Speaker, but we cannot do that, but we know that there has been a 5 per cent increase in income support; the first time ever; the biggest increase ever. Indexing of income support: the first time ever, Mr. Speaker. We have tenants in housing who have rebates on education reducing education fees, and it goes on and on and on. We have begun the right road to reducing poverty in this country and in this Province, and we are on the right road, a lot further than the former Administration was, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I have to say, I think the government should realize they are buying the wrong fibre. We have to get the fibre to go to the food banks.

I ask the minister: In light of the information in this report, would you agree that the spending of over $300,000 to wine and dine the Premiers and territorial leaders this past summer was excessive and extravagant and the money could have been put to a better use? Will you now agree to match the amount you spend on gifts, booze, food, entertainment and fur coats at this conference with a similar donation to the food banks of this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, it is really too bad that the member has to go to this level because the fact of the matter is - he knows it, he is standing here today knowing it - that this government has moved further than any previous government, Mr. Speaker. That is why there is $64 million - not $300,000 - $64 million in initiatives. I would take a lot more than Question Period and a lot of leave to list out the things in this Poverty Reduction Strategy which many groups around this Province, including a group I met with this morning on housing who thanked us and commended us for what we are doing on these initiatives - and they are going to join with us in working with food banks. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we have invited those groups in as focus groups to work on poverty reduction as we go ahead. So, we are very proud of what this government has done as far as poverty reduction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Minister, you stated last week that the Bull Arm security building Request for Proposals was done by the site manager. That is the second time around. Can you confirm who the site manager is? How many companies did the site manager invite to submit proposals? Who submitted proposals the second time around, and what were the bids submitted?

Would you agree to table that information rather than forcing us to go through a freedom of information request? Because it is urgent that we see the information.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I would be very happy to table that information.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Kevin Greene is the site manager, and that there were three bids requested from local suppliers, including the lowest bidder on the last project.

The other two pieces of information I will table with the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, you told the public last week, government saved tens of thousands of dollars on the Bull Arm security building contract. What you failed to tell the public was that the specifications were changed the second time around. For example, I understand there were wooden beams put in as opposed to steel structural beams.

Minister, will you tell us and table the information showing who did the flooring, the aluminum, the windows, the mechanical and the electrical for that contract, and the amount paid for these parts of that contract?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have reviewed all of that information and I am more than happy to make it available to the House.

Thank you.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, you acknowledged in your press release last week that your department failed to comply with the Public Tender Act with regard to all of the legal forms that had to be filed. Now that this matter has been brought to light, you are scrambling to get those forms filed. It probably never would have been done if the Opposition had not raised these questions in the House last week. I would like to ask you about another requirement of that contract which was conveniently overlooked.

Can you confirm that the first time bids were submitted on this contract all companies had to be

core certified, but that the second time around the core certification requirement was removed, thereby allowing Ms Cleary's campaign manager's company to be able to bid, because he could not the first time? Who removed this requirement for core certification?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate to his House that Ms Cleary had no involvement in the call for the second amount of bids, the second number of bids.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, while the Public Tender Act was followed, government's policy of having companies core registered was overlooked in this case. We have taken that very seriously. We are ensuring that all of our boards and agencies are aware of the policy of government, and we will do everything we can to ensure that these regulations are followed in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Education.

In last year's Budget, $1 million was allocated to look at the possibilities and report on different options regarding the campus of the College of the North Atlantic in Labrador West. I wonder if the minister can tell us what the status of that report is today.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: I would like to thank the hon. member for the question.

We did allocate money to look for a location facility, what we can do in Lab West. We do have a consultant's report in, an assessment of what needs to be done. Government, the Department of Education, will be looking at that. We will be looking at the cost of how to move forward, and we are hoping that we will be able to build plans in next year's budget regarding a campus in Lab West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The next question is for the Minister Responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

Two or three years ago, Mr. Speaker, government sold off most of the housing units that they had in Labrador West. Since that time, the area is going through a bit of an economic boom, forcing many people with no opportunities to have housing for them and their families.

I want to ask the minister: Now that they have sold off their housing, with very few units left - there is a long list of applicants, as the minister knows - what is government's plan to deal with the housing crisis for people who need Newfoundland and Labrador Housing in the Labrador West area?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the member for his question. I know he is concerned about that; he has raised it a number of times with me.

We are reviewing - as a matter of fact, there are some meetings set for Labrador West, with the Mayor of Labrador West, in the coming weeks with officials from my department. We are recognizing the shortages, but at the same time I remind the member, though, that a lot of the shortages are outside of Newfoundland and Housing and that, in fact, it is people who need housing overall in Labrador West because of the mining boom. It is a combination of both. It is not just with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

As we speak now, as matter of fact, in comparison to the rest of the Island, Labrador West has a fairly short waiting list for actual housing units. The housing shortage is certainly outside of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, but we will be reviewing what is happening in Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

There are serious issues developing in the child care sector in the Province. As the Province stood by and watched their federal cousins cut the $5 billion national child care agreement without protest, 93 per cent of the children under the age of twelve in the Province were left without any regulated child care spaces. Many of the spaces that do exist are not being filled with children today simply because operators cannot recruit the early childhood educators that they require for those positions.

What is the government's plan to deal with this serious recruitment and retention problem?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I will refer the Member for Cartwright- L'Anse au Clair to the plan that we released on May 24. That plan, Mr. Speaker, was met with great praise from the industry. It does address affordability. It does address the ability to recruit early learning and child care educators. It does address the ability to create spaces throughout the Province, especially in rural areas of the Province. We are only a few months from the time that we announced that, Mr. Speaker, and I will ask that the member be patient while we allow that plan that we announced on May 24 to actually work.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is well aware that earlier enhancements that were announced for workers are not nearly enough and that government is not bringing these early childhood educators today to the professional level that we need them to be. One of the difficulties identified by these operators in recruiting workers is the reduced wage and insufficient benefits of the job.

Is government prepared to offer up more money for worker subsidies so we may get those closed child care spaces reopened?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair has not read the plan that we released on May 24, because it does address wages, it does address increasing the threshold for eligibility for children qualifying for these spaces. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the plan is starting to work, because as of May we have created 463 additional subsidies, which means that 463 additional children in this Province, as of May, are being subsidized. So, it is working. We do have, within that plan, the ability to recruit additional child care educators and that is going to happen.

We have only announced this in May. I have met with the federal minister on a couple of occasions face to face. I have written the federal minister to ask that they put additional funding into early learning and child care. But even if the federal government does not come to the table, we are committed to making early learning and child care in this Province better for the children of the Province and better for all regions of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: I say to the minister, I have his full report here and I have read it all. I also say to him, he made a commitment that by September those spaces would be in place.

Government did receive $21.6 million from the Paul Martin Liberal child care program before Harper cancelled it. I understand that this money was not invested to supplement early childhood educators on the job but rather went to top up the staff in the minister's own department to complete several studies that government had wanted done and also to meet government's own commitment, that he just talked about, to provide more subsidies for child care.

Can the minister table in the House today a list of the new positions that he created in his department with this money and provide a full account of the $21 million in federal dollars that he was entrusted to manage on behalf of child care in the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any new positions that were created in the department as a result of this $21.6 million, but what I can say: If the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair has read the plan she obviously does not understand the plan, because it does address the ability to top up wages for early learning and child care educators, it does address bursaries and so on, and it will address the ability to recruit more early learning and child care educators into the system. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, she has not read it. Already we have seen 463 new subsidies as of September. The number is even higher than that, it is close to 500. There are almost 500 new spaces created since this time last year in early learning and child care in this Province, and since May there are over 100 new spaces created as a direct result of the plan that we announced in May.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Oh, yes, I have read it. I have read it, Mr. Speaker, and I say to the minister that the benefits he put in are on a sliding scale for those workers after they go over $25,000 a year, and he knows that is what the problem is.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 303 is now before the House of Commons for debate. This bill does not support private centres -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is being distracted by conversations.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, because I was getting distracted myself.

Bill C-303 is now before the House of Commons for debate and we know the bill does not support private child care centres. Knowing that most child care spaces in this Province are provided through private operators, is the minister concerned about the passage of this bill and is he concerned that it could have an impact on private child care centres to the point that some may have to close?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, we have made our concerns known to the federal minister responsible for early learning and child care. Not only have I made our concerns known to her, but I have told her that I do not support the current measures that the federal government are undertaking.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, we would like to see more from the federal government, but as I stated earlier this afternoon, as I have stated previously, with or without the federal government's help in this area, this Province is committed to early learning and child care. We have implemented our plan as of May 24, and we will continue to improve, as our ability allows us to improve, early learning and child care in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week the Premier's expensive gift giving and extravagant entertainment style was exposed in this House of Assembly. Over $100,000 was spent on mugs, jugs and sweaters, over $8,000 on coats for Klein, and almost $700 a head for free wining and dining.

My question to the Minister of Finance is: Since your priority is to put off the most lavish show for Premiers across Canada, will you now provide a fuel rebate to low income earners who heat their homes with electricity, like you promised when you were in Opposition?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is important to talk a little on history. In January, I think of 2001, they brought in a rebate program of $100. Near the end of March of 2003 they brought in a program and they got their money in the summertime. We came in as a government and brought one in, in the fall of the year, twice. Not only for $100; we brought one in with a maximum of $250 the first year because of the price - we brought in $400 the next year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I said before, and I said it publicly, that a paper is being prepared to bring to Cabinet and Cabinet will make the appropriate decision on that, not in July when the sweat is running off their brow and they get the $100 that they should have had four, five, seven or eight months before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, he will never get an historian's job because he forgot about the electricity. He got a new memory now since he is in Cabinet

Mr. Speaker, many communities around this Province, like Bird Cove on the Northern Peninsula, or Freshwater in Conception Bay - and I could name hundreds of others - cannot get funding from this government to provide their residents with clean drinking water. Yet, we learn that the Premier can spend over $200,000 in taxpayers' money in one night on food and an open bar.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance: How can you justify - you are holding the purse strings of the Province - spending excessive amounts of money to provide an open bar at an event like this but you cannot provide clean drinking water to the people of our Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, she forgot to mention that the net cost and significant hundreds of thousands, I think four hundred or more, was put into this by businesses, an event hosted every ten years in the Province. She neglects to give the full truth on that, Mr. Speaker.

What I do remember, though, is $450 million of new money that was put in Budget 2006. What I do remember is $180 million was put into health care in the last Budget. I remember $100 million put in education in the last Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I remember a roads program this year of almost $65 million, when they spent as low as $6 million in one year on roads in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I remember $62 million annualized for poverty reduction in this Province when they put zero in the budget, Mr. Speaker. I could go on for five hours on what we did. They did absolutely nothing when they were in power!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Minister of Finance keep that speech for the 9,000 lined up on Kenmount Road and for the food banks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, we all know that this Province deserves a better deal on equalization and we all know that their federal cousins are trying to dodge away from keeping their commitments they made in writing to this Province.

I ask the Minister of Finance: How can he, on one hand, tell the national leaders we do not have adequate funds and need a better deal within Confederation when they have all experienced, firsthand, the Premier's extravagance? How much damage did the Premier's extravagant spending do to our case for better equalization?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, how much did spending $1 billion more than us again damage us as a Province? Four credit rating increases in the last year alone, that is what we did to this Province!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Talk about out-migration; in our years in power there was an average of 2,187 people who left this Province per year. When they were in power in the 1990s, 5,900 a year left this Province; net out-migration. In the 1960s and early 1970s, almost 4,000 a year was the net out-migration loss, and during this Administration it is only half of that amount; the most people employed in our Province's history, 240,900; and the lowest unemployment rate in twenty-five years, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Twelve thousand left in one year under that government, 10,000 another year, and 9,000 another year. We had tens of thousands of people who left this Province. They almost shut down this Province, Mr. Speaker, during their tenure. Thank God they are out of power now because -

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Presenting reports by standing and select committees.

Tabling of documents.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Section 26.5(a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling two Orders in Council relating to funding pre-commitments for the 2007-2008 fiscal year; significant investments in our future, Mr. Speaker, significant.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motions.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions relating to the granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty. (Bill 62)

Further, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The House of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act. (Bill 59)

Further, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, No.2. (Bill 60)

Further, Mr. Speaker, I give notice, per Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn tomorrow at 5:30 o'clock, and further I move, per Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn tomorrow night at 10:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Mental Health Care And Treatment. (Bill 61)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MS GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on tomorrow I will introduce the following Private Member's Resolution:

WHEREAS the Williams' Government on June 23, 2006, released its new Poverty Reduction Strategy entitled "Reducing Poverty: An Action Plan For Newfoundland and Labrador," following through on a commitment to transform Newfoundland and Labrador over a ten-year period from a Province with the most poverty to a Province with the lease poverty; and

WHEREAS the Williams' Government backed up this new strategy in the 2006 Budget with a financial commitment of over $60 million annually to support expanded eligibility for the prescription drug program, the elimination of school fees, increases to income support programs, and enhanced Adult Basic Education offerings in a focused effort to ensure that poverty reduction occurs and that the strategy's important objective are met over the long-term; and

WHEREAS this strategy is the foundation of a partnership among citizens, the government and the community that provides a new and vital starting point for the journey toward the elimination of poverty in Newfoundland and Labrador;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this Honourable House reaffirm its support for the Poverty Reduction Strategy and its objective of transforming Newfoundland and Labrador over a ten-year period from a Province with the most poverty to a Province with the least poverty.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents from Lark Harbour and people living along Route 450 in the Bay of Islands concerning the road conditions. I will read the petition because I will be presenting several:

WHEREAS we the undersigned are expressing our concern regarding the deteriorated condition of Route 450;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, respectfully call upon the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide the substantially needed recapping and upgrades for the community of Lark Harbour and extending area of Route 450.

Mr. Speaker, I stand to present this petition because of the lack of funding from this government concerning the roads program. It is not a luxury to have safe roads along Route 450. I wrote this minister and asked him to meet with the town councils, he refused. I wrote the former minister, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, he refused. I wrote the former, former minister, who is now the Minister of Fisheries, to meet with the town councils, he refused.

I have tried on many occasions to get issues brought forth from the residents on the north end, South Shore of the Bay of Islands, but every time, I guess, we hear the rhetoric. We heard from the Minister of Fisheries when he was the member saying that we put too much money into it and it is time to spread it around. We see the Member for Lake Melville, who is now the Minister of Transportation and Works, saying that we never put any in there, that the former minister was wrong. We never put any in there, that is why the roads are so bad.

Mr. Speaker, there is a safety concern on this road. There are gabion baskets - in actual fact, when I wrote the former minister, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, there were two major rocks in the middle of the road and there were actually two car accidents on that road. Even up to that point, I could not get the gabion baskets fixed. That is a safety concern. It just shows the lack of concern for residents.

I say to the Premier, that was not his commitment when he was running in 2003 - how he was going to fix the roads up, how he was going to put money into the roads. Last year we saw $48 million put into the roads. We saw $12 million of that not spent. We see $60 million put in for this year. I would estimate there is $18 million to $20 million of that not spent, and here we see roads and safety conditions not being addressed.

I call upon the government once again, to fulfil your commitment to provide safe roads to people. It irritates me, Mr. Speaker, when I get the Minister of Transportation and Works down in the district and he does not have the courtesy to meet with one town council in the whole Bay of Islands; not the courtesy of meeting one.

The road to McIver's, which is on the North Shore of the Bay of Islands - when he wanted to find out where the road was, the Minister of Transportation and Works would not call one town council. He took a drive over on a Sunday morning, he stopped off at a convenience store -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. JOYCE: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave? Leave has been requested.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, what the minister did, instead of giving the town councils the courtesy of having a meeting with either of the town councils, he drove down on a Sunday morning at 11:00 o'clock, dropped off at a corner store and asked the clerk behind the counter: Would you mind phoning around to see if there is a town councillor around this weekend to show me where the problem with the road is? That is the respect that minister has for the people of the Bay of Islands. I requested meetings at least four times -

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave is withdrawn.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Leave has been withdrawn.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking hon. members to keep their conversations -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, who is presenting a petition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Williams Harbour, in my district, Mr. Speaker. The community of Williams Harbour is a small community on the Southeast Coast of Labrador. It is actually an island that is removed from the mainland by a very small distance. In fact, it would be easy to put a bridge from this community to the mainland and to build a road to the Trans-Labrador Highway.

When we were in government, Mr. Speaker, we were intending to do that. We had a plan in place where we connected six communities to the Trans-Labrador Highway in that area. The next community to be connected was the community of Williams Harbour. It was at a cost of $5.5 million to the provincial government. All the engineering work was done, the environmental assessment work was done. The actual bridge that was to go across the river was brought in and put on location. Then, the government, under the Williams' government, decided to cancel this entire initiative.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Let me tell you what that means to the residents of -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There are conversations that are being exchanged across the Assembly which are preventing the Chair from hearing the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. I ask members for their co-operation.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think hon. members should listen, because this is a community where individuals are left in a very difficult situation when it comes to transportation. Normally, in the winter, the ice would freeze from Williams Harbour to the neighbouring community of Pinsent Arm where they could get off the island by snowmobile.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, the ice did not freeze. Because of global warming, the climatic impact in that area is having a devastating impact upon people. There was a family last year who made an attempt to get off the island of Williams Harbour. As a result, two individuals went through the ice and nearly lost their lives. Because of that, Mr. Speaker, the channel had to be closed. Unless there is a bridge that is put across that channel to allow them, either by snowmobile or by road or by some other means, to access the mainland, these people are actually trapped where they are and are unable to get out of it.

Now, that is a very serious issue and I think it is time that the government started to take it seriously. What is so disappointing for me is that today the Minister of Transportation and Works, who happens also to be the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs, who knows this community very intimately, who knows the difficulties that these people are going through but yet refuses to address the problem, refuses to make the funds available to do what is needed and, in fact, this year even refused to put any money into the community to upgrade the gravel road that goes through the community, which would have been a very small price to pay.

It is frustrating for people in this community, but in the whole region, because when the government stands up and boasts that they have a $60 million allocation for roadwork in the Province, let me tell you, that does not include Labrador; because, out of that $60 million I would suggest that probably less than $1 million of it was spent in Labrador, whereas $59 million was spent on the Island, and that is a huge problem for me.

The work that is going on in Labrador right now is being done under Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MS JONES: May I have leave, Mr. Speaker? (Inaudible) interrupted several times.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was interrupted several times when I was presenting this petition, so I appreciate that.

What I was going to say in my concluding remarks is that Phase III of the highway is a major piece of road development that is going on in Labrador right now, and people know that the money for that highway was secured under the previous government and that is the money that is being invested.

When it comes to communities like Williams Harbour, they are definitely at the mercy of the provincial government to have a road connection to the outside world. Unless this road gets built, the people in this community, each and every year, will continue to have to put their lives in jeopardy to be able to access services, because there is no clinic in the community and they have to go outside for medical reasons, for educational reasons, for supply and services. There is not even a gas station there. They have to go outside to get gas and furnace oil and fuel. So it is a very small investment, I suggest, for the government to ensure that the quality of life for the people in the community of Williams Harbour is a lot easier, and indeed they do not have to continue to put their lives in jeopardy to access the essential services that everyone else enjoys.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move Motion 2.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 2 is, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn today, Monday, December 4, at 5:30 o'clock p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move Motion 3.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn today, Monday, December 4, at 10:00 o'clock p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now that we are really in motion, I move Motion 1.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1, pursuant to the Citizens' Representative Act, reads as follows. I will dispense with the WHEREAS. It says: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Mr. Barry Fleming, LL.B. be appointed as the Citizens' Representative.

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to speak in support of the resolution to appoint Mr. Barry Fleming, LL.B., as the Province's Citizens' Representative, pursuant to subsection 3.(1) of the Citizens' Representative Act.

This appointment will enable the House to fill a vacancy that was created when the former Citizens' Representative was removed from the post by a resolution of this House. According to the act, the Citizens' Representative fills a critical function in our society.

Our government has demonstrated in word and in deed our firm conviction in the principles of open and accountable government. We have also demonstrated through our financial investments our unwavering commitment to helping those in society who need help most. Whether through social initiatives, such as poverty reduction and violence prevention, or through investments in our justice system, such as additional money for legal aid resources and the expansion of victim services, our government has clearly shown that we believe in empowering our citizens.

The Citizens' Representative is an office that certainly facilitates the empowerment of our citizens. The person holding the post is an independent officer of the House, just as the Auditor General and the Child and Youth Advocate are. Section 15 of the Act highlights the function of this post.

The Citizens' Representative may, on a written complaint or on his or her own initiative, investigate a decision or recommendation made, including a recommendation made to a minister, or an act done or omitted, relating to a matter of administration in or by a department or agency of the government, or by an officer, employee or member of the department or agency, where a person is or may be aggrieved.

The Citizens' Representative has considerable investigative powers which enable the office holder to get to the heart of a government decision and make a judgement about whether someone has been wronged and whether a remedy of some sort should be made. It is a check and balance against the considerable power that any government has, and it is valuable in an open and accountable society for a government's powers to be balanced in this way. It is essential that such a post be held by someone of the utmost integrity and ability, who is seen by the public as being thorough, fair, and circumspect in all dealings. We are very fortunate to have someone of Mr. Fleming's calibre and experience.

He served from 1995-2006 as the legal counsel for the Province's Human Rights Commission, and from 2003-2006 as the acting executive director of that commission. As the general legal counsel to the commission and its staff, Mr. Fleming was tasked with assessing initial complaints to ensure they met legal and jurisdictional requirements, assisting staff with the legal aspects of complaints, preparing legal opinions, providing seminars and presentations on humans rights law, and representing the commission at boards of inquiry and in the Supreme Court Trial Division and the Court of Appeal.

As the acting executive director over the past three years, Mr. Fleming was also responsible for the overall management of the commission, including complaint processing and preparing for and facilitating meetings of the commission to review complaints. He was also responsible for recruitment, training and direction of all staff, for developing strong relationships with community groups and the media, and for overseeing the long-term strategic planning for the commission. Many of these responsibilities are, of course, very similar to those that go with the post of Citizens' Representative, so I expect that he would very quickly begin to feel comfortable in this new role and be able to get down to work representing our Province's citizens.

Mr. Fleming is a lawyer, and a member of the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador. He had seven years of experience in private practice with an emphasis on small business law, human rights, immigration and refugee law. He holds not just a Bachelor of Laws but also a Masters of Business Administration from Dalhousie and a Bachelor of Arts with a Gold Medal in Economics from Memorial. He has instructed Business Law at Memorial's Faculty of Business and has served as an instructor for the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador's Bar Admission Course, and a lecturer for the employees council fall conferences in 2003 and 2006.

With this experience to draw on, he has a thorough understanding of public administration, including budgeting, human resource management, and accountability and transparency reporting. He has also developed an understanding of the structure, processes and functions of various government departments and agencies. During his tenure with the commission, the organization has handled some diverse and far-reaching human rights issues, including mandatory retirement, the certification of foreign-trained dentists, and the provision of services brought to sick children.

His experience has given him excellent opportunities to hone his skills in both written and oral communication, research, community and media relations, annual report drafting, and accountable administration of funds. In short, he is perfectly suited for this post. We have every reason to believe, based on his experience, that he will be thorough, fair and bold in taking on the responsibilities of Citizens' Representative, and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will be well served.

I trust that other members will acknowledge his impressive qualifications for this post and agree with us that we have found someone who is eminently suited to this vital role.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to support this motion today for the appointment of such a critical position for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Fleming is an outstanding choice.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to support the resolution put forward by the Premier. I would like to welcome Mr. Fleming, not only to the gallery of the House of Assembly but to his new position as Citizens' Representative for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Having reviewed Mr. Fleming's credentials and work experience, I think he is ideally suited for the position, especially in light of the fact that he has been acting as the Executive Director of the Provincial Human Rights Commission since 2003. I also understand that he has been the legal counsel for the commission since 1995. I am also very impressed with the fact that, even in private practice, Mr. Fleming spent a considerable amount of time dealing with human rights, immigration and refugee law. His background, Mr. Speaker, certainly speaks for itself, and his knowledge of human rights will certainly be of help to him in his new role.

On behalf of the Official Opposition, we welcome you to this new position.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, am quite pleased to rise and endorse the appointment of Mr. Barry Fleming as the new Citizens' Representative for Newfoundland and Labrador, and welcome him not just to the House but also to his new position.

I have no doubt, and I am quite confident, actually, from reading his background and from everything that has been said by the Premier, and everything that we have in writing, that Mr. Fleming is eminently prepared for this work. I know from people who have had to deal with him in his past position with the Human Rights Commission, that he brings a wonderful track record in terms of responding to people's needs and working with the public.

I would like to say that it is going to be very important that we do everything to use Mr. Fleming's expertise and experience to the absolute maximum, and therefore I urge the government at this time to make sure that sufficient resources are put in place to support him in doing the work that he has to do. It is very hard work, and sometimes a thankless job.

There has been a history of a long waiting list of citizens wanting investigations done on legitimate complaints, so I really urge government to ensure that we put everything in place to support Mr. Fleming to make sure that any waiting list that exists is eliminated, and we keep a waiting list at the absolute minimum.

Thank you very much, and welcome to Mr. Fleming.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Are there further speakers to the resolution?

The resolution is: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Mr. Barry Fleming, LL.B. be appointed as the Citizens' Representative.

All those in favour of the motion, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-mined, ‘nay'.

The motion is carried unanimously.

Congratulations, Mr. Fleming.

Motion carried unanimously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now call, with leave, first reading of Bill 60, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair wished to confirm that leave has been granted.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No.2 (Bill 60)

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the hon. the minister shall have leave to introduce this bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2," carried. (Bill 60)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 60, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No.2, be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2. (Bill 60)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 60, An Act To Amend The Income Tax, 2000 No. 2, has now been read a first time. When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. SULLIVAN: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 60 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now move, with leave, first reading of Bill 59, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will assume that leave has been granted for those bills.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act. (Bill 59)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of the Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act," carried. (Bill 59)

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

Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt a motion that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act. (Bill 59)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 59, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act has now been read a first time. When shall this bill be read a second time?

MR. SULLIVAN: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 59 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now call Order 2, Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act No. 2.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act No. 2, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act No. 2." (Bill 39)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will be very brief on this one. This follows from the resolution on the tribunal for Judges' Salaries and Benefits that was already adopted and addressed here by the House. This just puts into effect what we already adopted and accepted under the resolution there. It is all evident in the report that was tabled here, I guess, the day the House opened. I think the very first day it opened, or at least a week ago Monday it was tabled. It is pretty self-explanatory and all the details are in that, so I am not going to elaborate. It is just on the pensionable aspect of that which pertains to my department. That is why it is necessary to move and amend the current Act to allow what the tribunal recommended here for it to happen. That is basically it. It is more a formality, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would concur with the comments of the Government House Leader. It is a matter of, as I say, putting into place what we already resolved last week. It is a housekeeping matter that has to be done in order to give true effect to that piece of legislation we dealt with last week. We will certainly be supportive of that piece of legislation, no question.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, I am supportive of the piece of legislation and we did talk about it last week. However, I do want to make one comment today, not to stand in the way of passing it but because I believe this comment must be made.

Obviously, I believe that the government must do this and I think it should be done, and I have no problem with things being improved for retired judges, but I do have a problem with the fact that this government refuses to see the need to fix the pensions of public sector workers who are making such little money that their members, more and more, are having to access the service of food banks around this Province and who are having to choose between buying food and paying for drugs.

I met people when I was canvassing Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi who did not have adequate money; people who were NAPE retirees, people on pensions who were doing exactly what I am talking about; people who were saying to me: What am I going to do? You know, it is fine and dandy to take care of retired judges, we have to do that, but what about the people who have the least amount of money in our society? It is totally unacceptable that some of the growth in food banks is coming from pensioners, from public sector pensioners. It is absolutely unacceptable.

Pensions that they now have, which have not been changed since 1989, are only worth fifty-five cents by today's dollar. When the government opposite me sat in Opposition, many of the sitting members told NAPE pensioners that they were being treated unfairly and were due an increase immediately. Well, I am wondering what immediately means. This government has now been in place since 2003 and are showing no move with regard to changing the situation for the NAPE pensioners.

Many of the hon. members sitting on the government side right now walked shoulder to shoulder with NAPE members protesting against the government of the day and told them that they supported them and that, yes, they would do something about their situation when they became government. Well, I see nothing happening.

My question to the government, and something I want government to think about, is: How can this government, in good conscience, bring forward the current bill without promising they are going to deal with the situation of the public sector pensioners in this Province?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Government House Leader speaks now he will close debate on this bill at second reading.

The hon. the minister.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With reference to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I will indicate that this government already has put almost $2 billion into the Teachers' Pension Plan. We are committed this year to putting $800 million to borrow to put into the Public Service Pension Plan. We gave that commitment. We allowed for approval for borrowing within the budget. It has gone through Cabinet. That approval is given and, Mr. Speaker, I am sure we will see that in due course. We have given that commitment to do that. Every single responsibility that we have under the pension plan we have fulfilled. The pension plan with teachers was over $2 billion unfunded. The public service is about one point three range unfunded, or higher actually, depending on its performance in any given month. We have made significant investments, and before this year is out we will have put close to $3 billion in pension funds that guarantee in the future there will be a pension to receive. That is very, very important.

This particular bill here, a lot of times a judge does not get appointed until fifty, fifty-five, sixty, sixty-two. Obviously, you would not expect the same period of pension to qualify for a judge because usually they are not appointed at the beginning of their legal profession. They normally get appointed near the end of their legal profession. That is why it is important that there be a different arrangement for that.

This went to the tribunal, of course. Government put forth positions for the tribunal. The representative judges put forth certain proposals to that tribunal there. It is tabled. Everybody can look at all of this in detail on every aspect of this tribunal.

With reference to that, they came back and the recommendation here we are following. We think it is reasonable. We, in its totality, accepted that independent tribunal's decision to move forward and that is what we are doing here in this particular bill, Mr. Speaker.

We have fulfilled commitments. We will have done, before this year is out, probably $3 billion worth of commitments to people in the Province. Everybody getting a pension in this Province - a pension is based upon your income and it is based upon your years of service. Every single person, according to the law in this Province, is getting a pension based upon those factors. There is nobody otherwise. Anybody who gets a low pension, we sympathize with them. They get a low pension because their years of service was lower, or their income at the time was lower, and where there was no indexation of it, and with the inflationary factor, Mr. Speaker. We have followed that, Mr. Speaker.

We have looked at doing something. I met with the pensioners' association on many occasions. What we said to them: If you are making $7,000 a year, or $12,000 a year - somebody else is making $12,000 a year at no pension, somebody else is making $12,000 a year with a partial pension, is there any difference in me, you, and these others? If we are all making $12,000, shouldn't we treat everybody the same? What did we do? We went out and reduced, eliminated, income tax for people, actually, under $11,500. We went out and we said: Anybody below this level, there are certain supplements and certain things under our Poverty Reduction Strategy.

We said: We cannot distinguish between a citizen of this Province, whether they worked for government or they worked for private industry. If you have the same income, you deserve the same benefits for us looking after those individuals. I think it is very important that we have to be fair. We cannot make chalk of one and cheese of another. We cannot treat people of this Province on one hand one way, our employees one way, and ignore the rest of the people of the Province.

Anybody who stands for fairness, for equity and equality, would be very much in favour of what we have done here because it is done on a ration. It is done on a basis that recognizes every Newfoundlander and Labradorian within certain income levels, not who your employer happens to be. That is why we stand on a record of what we did as being very significant. With $3 billion we are securing the future for people, that in the future this problem will not be there. We are going to eliminate it for roughly 50,000 people around our Province who are depending on pensions from the public sector in different areas. We lived up to that commitment, we are moving forward on it, and we wanted to secure that when nothing was done.

In fact, we have a little over $2 billion in assets and liabilities. In total, we needed $6.5 billion in there to fix it. It was becoming so serious that the Teachers' Pension Plan would have run out in another seven years, a little over seven years. The Public Service Pension Plan, while half-funded, would have run out at some point in the future, not an imminent problem but it would be in the future. So, why pass those debts on to the future generations? We want our young people to be removed from the shackles and burdens of society that were inflicted on them by previous generations. We want to give them an opportunity to be able to work and live here in our Province and not be indebted by what somebody else did.

That is our philosophy, Mr. Speaker. That is why we are heading in that direction, and that is why we are bringing sensible legislation to this House of Assembly to correct inequities and treat people in this Province alike, regardless of who you happen to work for.

With that, I move second reading of this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act No. 2, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act No. 2. (Bill 39)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act No. 2, has now been read a second time.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act No. 2," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 39)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now call for second reading of Bill 58, An Act To Implement The Convention On International Interests In Mobile Aircraft Equipment.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 58, An Act To Implement The Convention On International Interests In Mobile Aircraft Equipment, be read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Implement The Convention On International Interests In Mobile Aircraft Equipment." (Bill 58)

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

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

I am pleased to rise to introduce Bill 58, and it is entitled, An Act To Implement The Convention On International Interests In Mobile Aircraft Equipment. The explanatory note says: "The purpose of this Bill is to implement the convention ..." and it is referring to an international convention called The Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment which was open for signature in Cape Town on November 16, 2001. This bill will parallel similar acts that are taking place in other Canadian provinces and arises from recommendations of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill will be to put in place legislation as requested by the Government of Canada which will support the establishment of a unified international security regime for the registration, notification and prioritization of security interests in aircrafts and aircraft equipment. This legislation will signify to the world that Newfoundland and Labrador certainly supports measures to modernize and unify international commercial law respecting financing of aircrafts and equipment used in aircraft construction - I know that the hon. the Member for Gander, in particular, has a major interest in that particular area - a matter of international commercial law upon which Canada has placed a high priority, its ratification of the convention and its associated aircraft protocol.

The convention was prepared by the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law, also known as UNIDROIT, which is an intergovernmental organization based in Rome whose mandate is to modernize and harmonize throughout the world a private and commercial law amongst sixty member States which compromise organization. Canada joined this organization in 1968 and we continue to remain active in supporting the initiatives of this organization.

The convention, Mr. Speaker, will establish legal rules and procedures and provide for the registration and prioritization of security interests, such as liens and other charges, upon high value mobile equipment which readily cross national and international borders.

The convention will establish a single electronic registry, an international registry. It will be based in Dublin, Ireland where the liens and charges are registered and where the priority of the liens and charges will be established on the basis of, the first in time of registration will be first in priority against that particular aircraft or equipment. This protocol applies to benefits of the convention to, as I said, aircrafts and aircraft equipment.

The convention and the aircraft protocol operate in a similar manner to what we have in this Province known as a Personal Property Security Registry which serves to register security interests against property and to assign priority to the interests which are registered. All provinces in Canada have personal property security legislation dealing with the perfection and the prioritization of security interests and have established personal property registries for the registration of such interests. As I said, we, here in this Province, have a Personal Property Security Registry. None of the provinces, however, has a personal property security regime that is suitable to address the unique situation involving rights respecting aircraft and aircraft equipment which, of course, by their nature are highly mobile and which can fly away out of the jurisdiction of a particular province or state and which constantly will cross national and international boundaries.

The establishment of a respected uniform security regime for the aviation industry and an international registry to register liens and charges will provide confidence to lenders and investors that their interests are, in fact, secured and will enable increased financing to be made available and will permit more cost-effective buying, leasing and selling of aircrafts that will minimize the risk of financial loss. It is expected that risk will be reduced for creditors and that there will be a consequent reduction in borrowing costs for those who borrow money to purchase aircraft or manufacture aircraft equipment.

Canada has indicated approval for the convention in aircraft protocol but has not yet filed official ratification documents with the international organization UNIDROIT . The practice of the federal government is that it will ratify treaties which impact upon provincial legislative powers, in this case personal property security matters, when there exists sufficient support from the provinces for such ratification.

We are advised, to date, Mr. Speaker, that the Provinces of Ontario, Nova Scotia, Alberta and Quebec either have or are putting in place legislation to give effect to the convention and the protocol when Canada has officially ratified the convention.

The federal government, Mr. Speaker, is actively promoting implementation of the convention and the protocol on the remaining provinces so as to be in a position to promote Canada as a modern jurisdiction for aircraft financing and to give assurance to foreign nationals that Canada is committed to rules which are accepted and predictable in relation to security interests in aircraft equipment. Support for the convention and the protocol will have no cost consequences for this government and will portray the Province as a jurisdiction which supports a modern and a uniform regime for the financing of aircraft and aircraft equipment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to present this legislation. I ask the support of all hon members. I move second reading of this bill.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I had an opportunity to go through this particular Bill 58. In fact, it is quite lengthy. It is sixty-nine pages long of which sixty-two pages are the convention itself, which was done in South Africa, and the six pages which we specifically drafted here to adopt that convention and make it part of our law. The minister, of course, is quite right when he says this is a case where you have two levels of authority in Canada. Some are federal jurisdictions, some are provincial. Because there is an overlap here in terms of personal property or proprietary interest rights, which is provincial, the federal government of course in those circumstances usually goes to the province and says: Look, albeit there may be some crossover, we would like your co-operation in making this international and this national law applicable in your jurisdiction. It is a co-operative venture and we understand it needs to be done.

I noticed as well, it takes some time to get here. We are here at the end of 2006 and the convention itself, I do believe, was ratified back in 2001. Albeit we are five years out - of course the wheels of the legislative sessions do not always turn quickly - I guess it is a case of better late than never. We are supportive of this in principle and will be voting in favour of this bill.

Thank you.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, will support the bill. We fully understand the importance of the convention and the importance for the two levels of government to work together.

I would like to use the opportunity of this bill though to talk to how we deal with legislation in the House. If one were to really take this bill seriously, one would read the convention very carefully and then cross reference between the six pages of the bill and the sixty-two pages of the convention. That is a very difficult thing to do when one receives the bill late on a Friday afternoon, especially as an MHA, when Friday, in particular, is a day that many of us devote to our constituents. This past Friday, for example, I had four events in a row in my district supporting my constituents. Getting highly technical bills late on Friday and being ready to speak to them on Monday is a difficult thing to do, especially when you have the few resources that we have as the third party in the House.

I think we have shown in the House over the past two weeks, and I have shown, that even bills that look like they just need rubber-stamping can be improved. I think that I showed that with Bill 23 on the human research ethics authority when, in discussion with the Minister of Health and his officials, I was able to bring forward amendments to the bill that were seen as important amendments.

I think we also saw it with Bill 38, the bill regarding flea markets. Again, a bill that looked very simple and nothing to it, was able to be improved in the regulations that will go with that bill by adding an amendment that we brought forward as well. In both cases, I was very happy to be able to talk to the ministers and to have input with regard to those bills.

I think those two examples point out the importance of all parties being involved in an engaged way in all of our legislation. The main reason we are here in this House is to make and pass legislation that is good for the people in this Province. That is why we are here. I am finding that bills are coming at us at such a rate that it is taking everything that I have to keep up with that, and everything that my resources have to keep up with that, to be sure that we are engaged in the legislation. I am not willing to be a member of this House and only rubber-stamp bills. That is not why I am here. I will take every word that is written and presented to me as being important and therefore requiring my attention. I would ask that we start considering, in this House, the use of legislative committees where we can have briefings, where we can seriously look at issues that are before us in legislation.

I understand from the Minister of Finance - well, we understand it because the motion was brought here on the floor today by the Minister of Health - that we have a pretty comprehensive bill that we are going to get some time at the end of this week with regard to health, and that bill, we are going to receive it either Thursday or Friday and we are going to be expected to have an in-depth discussion on that bill some time next week.

I think when we have bills like that coming to the House we should have time for briefings, we should have time for discussion and to have real input. As I said a minute ago, I think I have proven, in the last two weeks in this House, that the more minds that look at something the better is the product at the end. That has been shown in this House.

I want this House to consider, and I want the government to consider, the need for us to start getting bills ahead of time. Every department knows ahead of time when the sessions are starting. Those decisions are made. We all knew well ahead of time that some time in late November this House was going to sit. I think we could at least expect, as members of this House, to receive every bill that is going to be dealt with during a session at least one week before the House sits so that we have the time to take that legislation and see what is legislation that is going to require intense study.

I do not think that is too much to ask for. It is certainly my expectation, as somebody sitting in this House. I am not somebody who is used to having something passed to me to rubber stamp. I am not used to saying, oh, yes, I understand, when I do not understand. I will ask questions and I will try to understand, and I think that is the responsibility that I carry on my shoulders as an MHA.

I will be looking for other ways to discuss this issue as time goes on. I think I will be finding the correct minister to speak to - in this case, the Minister of Justice - to talk about this. I will find every opportunity I have for us to seriously consider ways in which we can maximize the use of all of us in this House, the use of all three parties, as we put together legislation for the people of this Province.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My colleague will certainly comment when he closes the bill. I want to comment on the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

I have been around the House now going on fifteen years. When a bill is circulated - we have to move first reading before we can circulate a bill and do second. We came into this House in the fall, I guess two weeks ago from today, and there was nothing on the Order Paper, not a bill on the Order Paper, really, expect the Speech from the Throne. We had to get leave on Monday to do notice and first reading so we could get the bills circulated. We even had to get some bills circulated. What we had, we got them out. What was available to be put out was done; what is drafted and printed is done. There is a whole process from the spring legislation over the course of the summer, into the fall, where we are meeting. There is a process to go through. It goes through committees of Cabinet.

All the while I have been here, I have often gotten a bill the night before and the next day we dealt with it. That has been customary there. I know the member is (inaudible) the House. What she is saying might be a very valid point, but there is a lot of legislation. It has to pass stages. It goes to committees. It goes to Cabinet. It goes back from Cabinet on times. There could be amendments. It has to go to a drafting form. You have to look at the changes in drafting there to make sure that is suitable, clear it through the Executive Council, back through the department involved and get it there.

I have advanced every single bill. We have moved legislation reasonably quickly through the House, granted, but they have not been new. There have been amendments to certain legislation out there and, I might add, much of it has been routine, fairly routine. Amendments are necessary. Some have to be done in this session, obviously, it is very important they have to be done in this session, and I have advanced them.

I had eight bills, I think, circulated on Friday, which is three days in advance. I have worked all night. My colleagues here in this House, in the past, and the history of this House, if you go back, I would say I have advanced bills as I get them. Every single one now that can be advanced and tabled is done here in this House. That is the process we go through. I give notice in first reading for leave to get them out today so we can have bills for Thursday in the House, and they are going through stages.

We have, I think, four people working drafting bills. There is a lot of work involved. There is a lot of detail, and it is a process we follow. In fact, the process is - I would think they are moved out as quickly as they have ever been. I communicate what is coming the day before with my colleagues there. I do not know what is customary. I cannot speak for the past. I even give the order that it will be, if we go beyond it to get the order. It is the member's prerogative if she wants to move something to a committee. That is prerogative; that is in the laws of the House. There are by-laws, there are Standing Orders to be able to accommodate that. That can be done. If there is a contentious point she wants clarified, she can ask the member, sit down with the department. Any minister is willing to do that. We have gone to every single level that we can.

We have a responsibility to the people of the Province to move legislation through the House. There is a process. It has to go through approval to make sure that what we put here is sound, that we do not have to be out putting legislation on and we have to look at an amendment. We want to make sure thoroughly that it has gone through all, every single aspect.

There were sixty-some possible bills. We prioritize the ones that have to get through, and move these through. This is an ongoing process from the spring to the fall. We have been putting about seventy bills a year through the House, and that has been as many bills as have ever gone through in a particular year. We are trying to clean up certain legislation. There are a lot of technical things. We want to streamline it. We want to look at red tape reduction, that we have less bills out there, and being able to include that in some of the legislation and aspects.

There are a variety of things that we do in that process. I have provided eight bills, which would carry us for Monday and Tuesday. I gave notice today, and hopefully we will get circulated, as soon as we can, these bills so people have them. That is par for the course. In fact, most of the bills that I have seen going through the House in a lot of instances have gone through on very short notice. We have research people to look through, do the work on these, spend evenings and nights, the critic in these areas. The member, with just two on their side, well, there is more work to be involved. People on the Official Opposition, with eleven, they can spread their critic's area over more people. We functioned over there with nine people, when I took over the party as leader, with nine people. We had to go through every bill. The Speaker knows quite well, we spent days, weekends, doing nothing but going through bills, consulting people out there. There is a consultation process that departments carry out, too, in moving a lot of legislation.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, the process we have gone through, I think, is probably as good as was ever gone through here. We keep them informed on this. There are no surprises here. Most of my time I sat there, I did not know until the House Leader got up and said we will call this particular bill. We did not know what was coming next. We had to go out to a caucus room, if someone went out to make a call, to get them in to answer to their bill.

I have given a heads-up on the order that has been called here today, and gone to every limit we can to be co-operative in that regard. There are prerogatives the member has, it is clear in the Standing Orders of this House, and there are procedures there. We are in no way trying to rush bills through, and ram bills through and that. I am open for discussion on any bill that needs discussion, or any particular thing, but it is incumbent on members to have to spend time to do their homework on bills. It takes time, it takes work; the same as we do here on our side. I went through that for eleven-and-a-half years, trying to be informed and read legislation; took out the Statutes, compared them to what is there now. We have done that. There is nothing new about that. In fact, I would say it is probably facilitated as much as humanly possible. There is not a bill that we are holding back that is drafted and ready to go, not one single one.

Now, while I am off the topic - the member was off the topic - with that, I will not make any further comments.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, making a point.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I did not anticipate what I was going to have to get into, having any comments regarding this issue, but the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi did, I believe, raise a very legitimate point about the timeliness in which legislation is delivered. I do not agree that the Government House Leader is in any position to get up here and lecture the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, or anybody else, about what the legislative process is, and I do not think he needs to go on the defensive.

We, for example, in the Official Opposition have at least been extremely co-operative with this Government House Leader since this House was opened to try to get his legislative agenda, and his government's legislative agenda, processed and processed in a timely manner. Instead of taking the offensive, as he has done here, or defensive, whatever you want to call it, and getting up and berating another member because she asked for some more time - in some cases, as the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi said, we are dealing here with a sixty-nine page piece of legislation, some of which is very technical in nature, and she received it on Friday afternoon.

Now, I did tell the Government House Leader: Yes, you e-mail me what you have done and we will undertake to do our best to see that it is circulated and that our critics are in a position to debate it and move it on Monday, but that does not take away from the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi's right to have sufficient time. We certainly, over here, do not speak for her. She has her rights here in this House. I would say and encourage her, anytime that she gets a piece of legislation come across the House that she is not comfortable with and she wants time to deal with it, by all means she should, and I would be supportive of her in doing that. I think that is the approach we need to take here.

If the minister and the Government House Leader has thirty or forty bills that he wants to get processed, we know the timelines. Don't come in here and say that there is a process you had to go through of consultations and executive and back for amendments and draftings and everything else: Now, get your work done and I can't help it that you only have two members. I say to the minister, back this picture up far enough if you have to. The ultimate responsibility is on the government to deliver the legislative agenda, and I say it is incumbent upon the government to make sure we get it in a timely fashion. If that is the way the Government House Leader wants to get on, we will not be having eight pieces of legislation e-mailed to us on a Friday and told we are going to deal with it on a Monday. We are either going to play this game properly, reasonably, sensibly or else we are going to have a problem here, I would suggest.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I know a number of members are speaking. We are doing second reading of Bill 58, An Act To Implement The Convention On International Interests In Mobile Aircraft Equipment. Members know that you speak once, and we have had some variation of that. We have had some, I guess, variation of relevancy as well. The Chair would ask that we get back to the second reading of Bill 58, An Act To Implement The Convention On International Interests In Mobile Aircraft Equipment.

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

The hon. the Minister.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I do not think there has been a Cabinet shuffle that I am aware about, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry. The Chair apologizes. I do believe that is the second time I have done that in this session. Maybe it might be some kind of a wish list or something. The Chair apologizes.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

I certainly can understand the comments that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi made with respect to dealing with legislation. It is certainly not the intent of this side of the House to expect or ask members opposite to rubber stamp legislation. Based on the people I have seen in this House, and I include the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi in that, I do not think the people here are the type of people who are prepared simply to rubber stamp legislation that government intends to put through. I will say that from time to time even the minister who is presenting the legislation does receive the drafted legislation quite late. There are times when I have been in the House where I have seen the legislation that day for the first time. I know it can lead to confusion here.

When we debated the amendments to the Notary Public Act, I know that the Opposition House Leader was incensed with some wording in the amendment, wording which said that the Minister of Justice had the authority to cancel a notary public certificate without assigning a reason for doing so. He called it draconian, he called it communistic and called me every name in the book, if I recall correctly. As a matter of fact, I was concerned. Of course, the reality was that particular provision, we were not bringing that in. That provision had been on the books for over thirty-six years. The particular piece of legislation that we were bringing in was because of the fact that I would not exercise the authority that I had, as Minister of Justice, to take away somebody's certificate as a notary public. I refused to do so, unless there was legislation that permitted me to do so.

The Law Society had called upon me to exercise that authority. I would not do it. The Opposition House Leader, when he was Minister of Justice, he would not do it. The Law Society said to us: Well, there is a situation when you should exercise that authority. That was when a lawyer, who is a notary public, had been disbarred and there was a process where the rules of the Minister of Justice had applied. What would happen, that lawyer would be disbarred, he would lose his right to practice law, but he could still, as a notary public, carry on business under the guise of the notary public certificate and practice law as well.

It is important that we all get the legislation as quickly as possible so that we can analyze it and think about it. Sometimes we just cannot do that, but I certainly will undertake with members opposite to try to get legislation to them as quickly as possible because, as the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi did say, sometimes the more people look at something and analyze something, good ideas can come from all sides of the House and that is to the benefit of the people of this Province.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will move second reading of the legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 58, An Act To Implement The Convention On International Interests In Mobile Aircraft Equipment, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Implement The Convention On International Interests In Mobile Aircraft Equipment. (Bill 58)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 58, An Act To Implement The Convention On International Interests In Mobile Aircraft Equipment has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House? Presently?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Implement The Convention On International Interests In Mobile Aircraft Equipment," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 58)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now call second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act. (Bill 57)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 57, 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 57)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased this afternoon to introduce for debate before the Legislature Bill 57, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is very important to the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery. Appropriate fish inspection protocol, Mr. Speaker, is essential to ensuring the quality of our seafood products is maximized.

This act, Mr. Speaker, regulates inspection. It is meant to ensure that appropriate fish inspection protocol is adhered to through provisions such as those related to infractions and ticketing.

Members will recall, Mr. Speaker, that almost a year ago to the day, really, I stood in this House to introduce amendments to the Fish Inspection Act. These amendments, at the time, were made to strengthen the Province's enforcement mechanisms under the act with the intent of ensuring improved compliance from industry, which would lead to an increase in the Province's ability to enforce quality control regulations.

The amendments, Mr. Speaker, that were passed a year ago certainly strengthened the authority of the act from a law enforcement perspective; but, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, nothing is perfect. To that end, Mr. Speaker, we are bringing forward additional amendments to the act today which will clarify certain aspects of the legislation and further strengthen law enforcement mechanisms. Mr. Speaker, we are committed to exercising due diligence in ensuring that this act maintains the strength it needs and that any identified deficiencies are addressed as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, as everyone is aware, Fishery Products International was extensively investigated earlier this year as it related to the unauthorized shipment of unprocessed yellowtail flounder out of the Province. Mr. Speaker, the investigation of FPI is likely the broadest investigation that the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture ever carried out in its history. During this investigation, the department identified that various changes to the Fish Inspection Act would be advantageous as it relates to the department's enforcement activities. In other words, our experience showed us, Mr. Speaker, through this major investigation, significant deficiencies that existed within the current act.

While the deficiencies identified, Mr. Speaker, were not detrimental to our completing the job, the amendments before the House today will facilitate having a smoother process if, in fact, future investigations are required.

These changes, Mr. Speaker, include the need to specify a limitations period for the commencement of action against the violation of the act. This is important because it could, in fact, take up to a year for the department to identify that an offence has occurred. Therefore, we are bringing forward an amendment that specifies a limitation period of three years from the date that the department first became aware of the alleged offence. This limitation period, Mr. Speaker, will be similar to the provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, for example.

Mr. Speaker, the current lack of a limitation period in the Fish Inspection Act means that the limitation period defined by the Provincial Offences Act applies. Specifically, that means that any charge must be laid within one year of the offence. The act as it currently stands does not provide for a limitation period. Therefore, under provincial law, when an act does not provide a limitation period, then the provisions of the Provincial Offences Act kicks in . In that case, you are entitled to one year. The Crown is entitled to one year from the date of the alleged offence to lay the charge.

If you cannot get your investigation completed and a charge laid within that one year period then it falls off the radar, nothing you can do about it. You can have all the good intentions in the world, you can carry out your investigations diligently, but if you cannot get it done and a charge laid within one year you are fresh out of luck in terms of laying the charge.

So, Mr. Speaker, this period obviously is insufficient when dealing with infractions related to fish inspection, as an extensive audit can and often is required. Only after an audit suggests that a violation has occurred can action proceed. These processes could cut significantly into the one year time frame that currently applies. Mr. Speaker, the Fish Inspection Act cannot be undermined by having offences go unpenalized simply because the act does not specify a limitations period.

This new legislation, Mr. Speaker, also provides for increased authority of fish inspectors. That is another very important part of the lessons we learned when we attempted to do the FPI investigation some months ago. Right now, fish inspectors have the power to serve warrants to collect fish as evidence, and enter only defined fish establishments to obtain this evidence. With these amendments, Mr. Speaker, fish inspectors will also have the authority to serve warrants for any records pertaining to the processing of fish, and they will have the authority to enter any area to obtain this evidence, not only defined fish establishments as currently exists in the act but they will have the ability to issue warrants and enter any area to obtain the evidence that they are looking for.

Mr. Speaker, obviously, having access to only fish shipments is inadequate, particularly when there are written records that inspectors should be able to access. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, under this new legislation, it will be an offence to threaten or harass an inspector and there will be specific penalties to deal with such infractions.

It is important, Mr. Speaker, that the inspectors be protected by law, that they not be harassed, that they not be threatened, that they not be told they are going to be flung off the property, and things of that nature. We have to protect those people if they are going out there on behalf of the people of the Province to carry out an investigation, a duly authorized investigation.

Mr. Speaker, it is true that good inspection programs go a long way toward ensuring a quality product. In a changing industry and a changing marketplace, we all agree that this must be a priority, and it is certainly a top priority for us. These amendments in particular will strength our existing program in which we have a rate of inspectors to plants that can rival any fisheries jurisdiction in Canada. Furthermore, we have added new auditors to our fish inspection staff.

Indeed, we are confident that these amendments will contribute significantly to our fish inspection program and certainly build upon the progress that our Province has made in this area in recent years.

Mr. Speaker, this new legislation will also provide clarification on what constitutes a separate count of an offence. Currently, this is not specified in the Fish Inspection Act. Consequently, this new legislation specifies that each shipment of fish or each day of unauthorized processing would be a separate account. This makes it unequivocally clear, Mr. Speaker, that repeated acts of the same violation can be treated individually and therefore charged individually.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments will certainly work to further strengthen the law enforcement ability of the Fish Inspection Act. In turn, we can expect that these amendments will lead to increased compliance from the industry, and this will have a positive impact on fish inspection and on quality control principles in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to briefly discuss one other amendment that is contained in this bill, which is not related primarily to enforcement. All the others are, with this exception: Government's ongoing red tape reduction initiative has identified that there is little benefit in having processors submit an annual processing plan, as they are now required to do. These plans provide a summary of the year's production numbers and an outlook for the year ahead, among other information. It has been determined that these plans provide little value as, in the absence of raw material shares - and, remember, that is where this came from. This recommendation was part of the Dunne report and Dunne, of course, had recommended that the raw material shares be introduced. As part of that, Dunne also recommended that this annual processing plan be introduced as well. In the absence of raw material shares, or some other arrangement, processors have limited ability to protect their future processing activity. How do they know? They do not have quotas, like the offshore companies have. How does a processor know and prepare a processing plant for next year, for example, Mr. Speaker, if they do not know, with any certainty, what volume of raw material is going to be available to them?

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, the data provided in these annual reports is already obtained through the annual licensing renewal application that all processors are required to submit. A redundancy would be built into the system if, in the absence of some raw material sharing arrangement, we were to insist on this particular provision. Therefore, these amendments will abolish the provisions of the Act which require the submission of an annual processing plan.

I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I have advised the FFAW, I have advised the Association of Seafood Producers and I have advised the Seafood Producers of Newfoundland and Labrador, SPNL, I have advised all of those groups in writing of the proposed amendments that I am bringing forward in this House today. I have not been advised by any of those groups of any major concerns from any of those organizations.

Mr. Speaker, we continue to make the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador a top priority, and it is in that context that I am pleased to bring forward these amendments that we believe will bring about significant benefit to the industry in the long-term.

With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move second reading of Bill 57 and to entertain the words and advice that may come from our colleagues opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Good advice it will be, I say to the Minister of Fisheries.

I would like to rise to speak to the amendments that the minister is making to the Fish Inspection Act and thank him for the copy. I do have some questions that we can get into before I sit down.

I can see the importance of strengthening the Act when it comes to enforcement and to inspection, because, as the minister knows, there was a great debate in the spring of the year when it was found out that FPI was shipping fish off to China for processing, which contravened the law of the land. It contravened that which was set out in the Fish Inspection Act. FPI was doing something that was illegal, and as a result they now are being investigated. I do not know if the investigation is complete, Minister?

MR. RIDEOUT: They were charged with fifty-four counts.

MR. REID: It has been investigated and they have been charged with fifty-four counts according to the minister.

I am wondering - and you can take notes as we go through - if we are changing the legislation to ensure that FPI will be, in fact, charged from that -

MR. RIDEOUT: No.

MR. REID: Okay, so you are not doing it retroactively?

MR. RIDEOUT: No, no.

MR. REID: Okay. I have no problem with that portion of the bill where we are going to strengthen up some rules and regulations and give inspectors more authority and more wherewithal to go in and actually discover if there was somebody who was breaking the law. The law of our Province states that fish landed in the Province has to be processed in the Province, and the only way fish can be shipped out for processing elsewhere, or shipped out even in the whole unprocessed form to another place, is with the written consent of the minister.

All ministers in the past have given consent to various species of fish being shipped out at some time for some reasons. I can remember back in the 1970s and early 1980s when we used to have a Russian factory freezer trawler in the harbour in Summerford on New World Island. I think at the time it was either mackerel or herring, all of our plants were either not buying it or they were all glutted. As a result, we brought in the factory freezer trawlers from Russia in order for fishermen and fisherwomen to have a place to sell their product. That has changed over the years and as a result we have to be vigilant in ensuring - and it is not just FPI that has been breaking the law in this Province with regard to exporting. Maybe the exporting, but there are others who are processing fish to which they were not entitled, I say to the minister. He probably knows what I am talking about as well.

I have no problem whatsoever with doing this, changing the legislation. I was interested to know - and I did not know even though I was minister - that we only had a one-year period from the time that we found out that someone was breaking the law with regard to processing to do our investigation and to lay charges. If it had not been done in a year, then obviously the perpetrator, for lack of a better word, could have gotten off with it. I am glad to see that it is gone to three years, but I ask - and maybe if it is not applicable here: How come we do not go with the seven years, that falls under the Statute of Limitations, that the Statue of Limitations runs out? I think it is seven years, isn't it, for most things. Anyway, you can consider that.

I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with the repelling of sections 10(1) and 10(2) of the Act. I have a problem with that, Minister, because if you read the Act here is what it says, "A processor shall submit a processing plan to the minister for his approval which (a) contains the information with respect to processing which the processor intends to undertake in that year; and (b) it is in the form required by the minister and contains the information required by the regulations."

The reason I have a problem with taking that out is: If, for example, FPI - under the law right now FPI had to submit a business plan last year. Am I correct, Minister? They were supposed to submit a written business plan telling us or telling the Province what species they intended to process and in what quantities. Well, other plants in the Province, for example, might not be able to tell you that. They can probably tell you: We are going to be doing caplin if there is any and we are probably going to be doing cod if there is cod and we are able to source it, we are able to buy it. But, we know today - for example, I know that this year FPI had 40 million pounds of groundfish under a licence from the federal government. That would mean that at the beginning of the year, if they said they were going to process 40 million pounds of groundfish, that they would have had that submitted to a plan to you sometime earlier in the year, at the beginning of the year.

If you remove that and that is no longer a requirement, then how are you going to determine, for example, what the quotas - I think you can determine what quotas FPI has because I think that is public knowledge and you can certainly find out. If they put it in their plan and all of the sudden we know that they are not processing, for example, 40 million pounds and you have your inspectors visiting the plants various times of the year, and if, for example, they are saying they are going to process 40 million pounds of groundfish and you are into June or July of the year and all of the sudden your inspectors realize this - and I have been going into FPI plants in the Province now for the past six months; haven't seen a groundfish. We know under their business plan that they were suppose to be processing this. So, I do not understand why you are eliminating the need to submit that plan. I really do not.

I think, when it was put in as well, Minister, it also had to deal with some of the unused licences under the big licence, under the core licence. For example, when you certify the plant you send out a form with all of the licences on there, and in the last few years we tried and you tried as well to eliminate those species that a processor was not processing in a plant. They had licences for species which they were not processing. It was the intent, I think, of both governments, yours and mine, that we would take those licences off. If, for example, they say at the beginning of the year, we are going to be doing cod and shrimp and the whole list, then it is easy to determine whether or not they are going to do it at the end of the year.

I really do not understand why you are taking that out, especially with regard to FPI. If they submit a business plan, they know at the beginning of the year or pretty close to it what the federal government is giving them in terms of quota, whether it be 40 million pounds of a certain species or 30. We know then what and probably when they intend to do it. It would be a lot easier for your inspector when he walks into an FPI plant to know whether or not they are doing it, and maybe that would lead him to determine earlier if FPI, or any other company, were indeed breaking the law.

I do not know if you can follow where I am coming from, but I do not understand why you would be taking that out, except probably that most of the plant owners do not want to be submitting a business plan to you at the beginning of the year. I can understand some of them saying that, but as far as I am concerned the more information we can get from these processors at the beginning of the year the better. You have to face it, Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege. That licence is a privilege that we pass over for not-so-many dollars, for the licence fee. I do not have the privilege to process crab or shrimp, and neither does anyone here that I am aware of. With that privilege should come some responsibilities.

As far as I am concerned, if you are getting the privilege to make money in this Province off the fishery because it is a public resource, then why shouldn't you submit a business plan at the beginning of the year to give the minister and the Department of Fisheries, provincially, some set of guidelines or some timetable that the inspectors, when they visit these fish plants, can relate to? If they are saying they are going to be doing a certain species around a particular time of year, what is wrong with that? I do not understand why you are taking it out. As far as I am concerned, that strengthened the Act when it was in there and I think that it is weakening the Act now by taking it out. I do not understand the rationale with the exception that the plant owners just do not want to be tangled up and be fooling with submitting a business plan that some feel they cannot live up to at the end of the year because they do not know how much fish that they can procure.

With companies, for example, like FPI and others, who have quotas - and there are others, by the way, who have quotas assigned to them by the federal government - it would be a lot easier to follow their schedule and maybe give us a heads-up as to whether or not they are breaking the law so that we do not have to go back retroactively in a year or a year-and-a half from now and say: Well, listen, we just found out that these people actually broke the law because they were shipping their fish elsewhere for processing, like was the case. I really and truly do not understand that.

Then the second part, clause 10(2), "A processor shall, once in a calendar year, file with the minister an annual report on his or her processing operations for the preceding year. Now, what is wrong with that? What is wrong with asking FPI, or any of the other processors in the Province, at the end of the year to submit what they have done in the year prior? Because if they submit that, then you would know. For example, you would know then whether or not they broke the law. Take FPI, for example - the reason I am taking FPI is because the minister just told me that they were investigated and some forty or fifty charges have been laid against them, so let's put it out there.

A question for the minister: At the end of the year, did FPI report that they did not process all that fish in the Province? Because if we know they have 40 million pounds and at the end of the year we find out that they only processed 30 millions pounds of that groundfish, then obviously the next question you would ask them is: What happened to the other 10 million pounds? Then they have two choices. They can tell you that they did not catch it or that they did catch it and they shipped it out of the Province for processing elsewhere. You do not have to be a genius then to determine that there are 10 million pounds of fish gone missing.

I do not understand why we would be eliminating, especially 10(2), that would require them to submit at the end of the fiscal year, or at the end of the calendar year, what they had done in the previous year. All you would have to do is look at what they told you they had processed and compare it to what you know they had caught. Then you could see if there was any discrepancy in what they were saying and what was, in fact, reality. I do not understand why you would be taking that out simply because these processors do not want to file an annual report. We do it for a lot of other industries.

I am sure that we are following what is happening in Voisey's Bay in determining how much is coming out of the ground and where it is going. We know that every time the offshore increases their production and takes more oil out of the ground beneath the ocean out there, they have to ask the government, and there is a record kept of what they have been taking out. It is part of their business plan and at the end of the year we can check against some plan to determine what indeed the oil industry has taken out of the ground. So why are we taking it out of the fishery?

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. REID: I do not understand why you would be taking out of this Act the right for the Province to know what individual processors actually did during the year, what fish they processed and the quantities. That, I think, Minister, would be instrumental in determining whether or not they had broken the law in the previous year, because you know that there has been a lot of misreporting. If your inspectors find out, for example, that a plant was supposed to have processed a million pounds this year, but in actual fact at the end of the year it comes in that they actually processed more, when they give you the report then you know they broke the law. I know that sounds a little simplistic and they are not going to rat themselves out at the end of the year, but I would certainly like to know, if I were a minister, exactly how many tons of fish each of the individual processors processed in the year previous because it would give some valuable information to you and your department.

I have no problem with strengthening the Act to extend it from one year to three years, that the department has to investigate and convict somebody, or at least lay charges. I have no problem with that whatsoever. I have no problem with giving inspectors more authority to do certain things with regard to the Fish Inspection Act, but I think that what you have done is while you are making some good, sensible amendments, you have eliminated it by taking these couple of clauses out or repealing these couple of clauses. The strength that you put in, you are taking out by saying that you do not have to submit a business plan and neither do you have to submit, at the end of the year, an account of what you did in that year. I think if you had both of those then you could compare it with what they said and what they actually did. That would give you some valuable information, even in terms of laying charges.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down and see if someone else wants to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture speaks now he will close the debate on second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank my friend, the Leader of the Opposition, for his comments on this bill. Certainly, I take heed to those comments because, having been a former minister, he knows what we are facing under the Fish Inspection Act. His comments with regards to enforcement and inspection are very valid. In those areas, I certainly do appreciate his support.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify for the record that this legislation is not retroactive legislation. The charges that were investigated and the allegations that were investigated - against FPI, in particular - which led to the laying of charges eventually, were done under the Fish Inspection Act as it currently exists. There were some difficulties, as I indicated, that cropped up during the course of that investigation which we hope to eliminate by those amendments, one of which was the limitation period. We chose three years because the closest provincial act, in terms of offences and ticketing and that kind of thing, that looks reasonable is not one year, as is the case now under the Provincial Offences Act - seven years perhaps for some more charges that are fairly severe. For example, under the Criminal Code there is no limitation period when it comes to sexual related charges. There is a range is what I am saying. The three-year range that is applicable under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, we thought, been reasonable and considering all of the circumstances, would be a reasonable approach and a reasonable compromise here.

Mr. Speaker, yes, I can confirm that in excess of fifty charges have been laid against FPI. They have been called in court, so it is now public knowledge. I will not make much comment other than to acknowledge that, and I believe a court date has been set for some time later in the fall when the charges will be heard, but we did certainly run into difficulty with other potential charges that could well have been laid in the sense that there was evidence enough to lay them but there was a problem with the limitation period and the one year, so we want to eliminate that.

I understand and appreciate the hon. Leader of the Opposition's comments as they relate to the repeal of a couple of sections, 10.1 and 10.2 of the act. I will repeat again, Mr. Speaker, those provisions were not always in the act, in the Fish Inspection Act. Those provisions became part of the Fish Inspection Act when the government of the day, which was us, I guess, accepted the recommendations of the Dunne report, when we brought legislation, amendments to the Fish Inspection Act, to this House to reflect our acceptance of certain recommendations within the Dunne report, one of which was raw material shares. If companies had raw material shares then they would know with some certainty, after a period of time, depending on what happened with the resource, but they would know with some certainty, what their share was. Therefore, based on that, they would be required to submit to the department a plan for processing that share.

Now, the hon. gentleman is right, there are other companies besides FPI, but few companies, that have access to raw material other than FPI and some other few companies. He is right in that regard, but the vast majority of processors in this Province do not have access to quota. They do not have access to offshore quota. They certainly have no guarantee of what is going to happen inshore. So, it becomes for most of them an exercise in futility because they cannot predict with any degree of certainty or accuracy what they are going to have available to them to process next year. It depends on competition on the head of the wharf, by and large, and since there is no raw material share and since that emanated from the Dunne report which anticipated raw material shares, since that was brought into the act because of that anticipation, it was the view, the considered view of everybody, including the industry, that we ought to eliminate that requirement.

The second part of it, Mr. Speaker, is that we get the information anyway because the companies, when they apply for renewal of their licences, must provide us with the information on what they did the previous year, as the hon. gentleman referred to. Before the licence process is complete, we have all of that material in our data banks and available to us.

There is no advantage that readily strikes me as requiring that this particular requirement stay part of the law, Mr. Speaker. In that context, then, we provided all aspects of the industry, union processors and anybody else that was interested, with those amendments, and we have not received any negative commentary. Therefore, we have placed them before the House.

There is a difference between companies that hold offshore quota, no doubt about it. He has a legitimate point to make there, but in the overall context of requiring this processing plan when the vast, vast majority of processors out there have no idea from season to season, now that there are now raw material shares, Mr. Speaker, what their processing capacity is going to be, then it seems to us to be an unnecessary burden on the industry. That is what they have indicated to us and it is in that context, and for no other reason, that we propose those amendments along with the rest.

Mr. Speaker, if there are other questions I will be happy to answer them when we get to Committee, but for now I would conclude my remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

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

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call now for second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Judgement Enforcement Act. (Bill 54)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 54, An Act To Amend The Judgement Enforcement Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Judgement Enforcement Act." (Bill 54)

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

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

It is my pleasure to rise this afternoon to introduce Bill 54, which is entitled, An Act To Amend The Judgement Enforcement Act.

It is always helpful to start off the discussion by reading the Explanatory Note that is set out here. It says, "This Bill would amend the Judgement Enforcement Act to exempt from enforcement proceedings under the Act property in retirement funds defined in the Income Tax Act (Canada)." - but there would be an exception. "The exception to this exemption would be with respect to actions taken under the Support Orders Enforcement Act and its successor, the Support Orders Enforcement Act, 2006." - which we passed in this House but the legislation is not yet proclaimed.

Mr. Speaker, before we talk about the amendment, it is always helpful to set where the amendment would fit in the context of the existing legislation. We have in this Province an act called the Judgement Enforcement Act, and that act deals with where someone called a judgement creditor may have sued and obtained judgement against another party called a judgment debtor. The purpose of that would be to have the judgement enforcement office execute against the property of the debtor and seize the property and sell the property so that the judgement can be satisfied, or another example would be a garnishment where the income or the bank account of the judgement debtor would be seized to satisfy the judgement held by the judgement creditor.

Section 3.(5)(b) of the current act, the Judgement Enforcement Act, states that, "except as otherwise provided in this or another Act, all property of a debtor is subject to enforcement proceedings under this Act". So, in other words, a judgement creditor, or I should say all the property of a debtor is subject to enforcement proceedings that exist under the legislation. A judgement creditor can enforce a judgment against all property of a debtor and that would include interest in pensions, it would include interest in future income plans, unless they are declared to be exempt by some legislation. This principle is referred to as universal exigibility. Now, that is a mouthful, universal exigibility, which means the property can be seized and sold or attached in order to satisfy a judgement.

I mentioned that the property could be declared to be exempt by this or some other legislation. The Judgment Enforcement Act itself, in section 131.(1)(j) indicates that a pension plan is exempt. It is exempt from being exigible.

There are some other exemptions. For example, Mr. Speaker, some Newfoundland statutes provide that certain types of property or income would be exempt from creditors remedies. The Pension Benefits Act, 1997, states in section 33 and it recognizes that pension right are exempt from execution. The section, in particular, states that money payable under a pension plan shall not be assigned, charged, attached, anticipated or given as security and is exempt from execution, seizure or attachment except where this section is overridden by another act, or in circumstances that may be prescribed in the regulations that are made pursuant to the act.

That is one type of property that is exempt. The legislators of this Province decided, as a matter of policy, that pension monies, monies in a pension plan, and the payments under that pension plan to retirees, would be exempt from execution.

Mr. Speaker, another example is that Newfoundland and Labrador law does not permit creditors to enforce their judgement against annuities and Registered Retirement Savings Plans that are issued by insurance companies.

Mr. Speaker, the policy of our government in Ottawa has been to encourage people to retire for their retirements, and one of the ways that happens for some people who work for governments, who work for large corporations, is that they receive pension plans. They work for a certain period of time, as a result they earn entitlement to a pension plan. The pension plan becomes locked in and provides income for their retirement. For people who do not work for government or large corporations, Mr. Speaker, they have to arrange their retirement on their own. They have to put money aside out of their income each year to provide a fund to provide for their retirement when they do retire. We all remember when we were children and we learned the story about the little field mouse. One field mouse just played and partied all night and the other field mouse put some of his acorns away to provide for his retirement.

The policy of the Government of Canada has been to encourage people who do not work for governments or organizations that provide pension plans to invest in retirement savings plans which, of course, will provide for their retirement and are very similar to pensions. So, we have a situation where a Registered Retirement Savings Plan, if it is taken out within a life insurance company, is exempt from execution. Yet, if you take out a Registered Retirement Savings Plan from a credit union, for example, or from a non-insurance company, such as a credit union or a bank or a mutual fund company, the pension in that future income plan is not exempt, and that seems to be unfair in that a non-insurance future income plan is exigible, whereas if you had it with an insurance company it is not.

So, as a result, there is a discrepancy in treatment of these plans. There is an apparent unfairness in this exposure of non-insurance future income plans compared to the protection of insurance future income plans and pensions and it is hard to rationalize that difference, that unfairness. Insurance and non-insurance vendors of future income funds or plans have copied each other's products to the point that the products - that they are largely indistinguishable from each other. Yet, an insurance product is totally exempt, while a similar plan purchased from another vendor, such as a credit union or a bank, is completely exposed to creditors remedies. If the products are virtually the same, it does appear unjust that they are treated differently.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, Canadian law recognize savings for retirement as a value worthy of protection and encouragement. However, the present patchwork of exemptions for pensions, insurance and non-insurance retirement income plans is incoherent and is unjust. Pensions and insurance future income plans are totally exempt. Future income plans, RRSPs purchased through credit unions and banks, mutual fund companies, are often held by the self-employed and by small and medium business entrepreneurs. An exemption of future income plans would encourage entrepreneurs to continue an economically beneficial activity which may entail risk unrelated to any wrongdoings on the part of the entrepreneur. Pensions and future income plans are sufficiently similar, but they deserve similar treatment in creditors remedies law. While people save for retirement in various ways, the Income Tax Act has singled out pensions and future income plans as entitled to similar forms of tax exemption. Pension and future income plans may not be necessary while the debtor is working but will be crucial to his or her survival during the years of retirement.

Mr. Speaker, the Support Enforcement Agency and orders that are issued under the Support Enforcement Act and the Support Enforcement Act of 2006, when it's proclaimed, will not be affected by this amendment. Part four of the soon to be proclaimed Enforcement of Support Orders Act, 2006, specifically authorizes a support enforcement agency to enforce a support order by attaching the registered plan of a debtor. A registered plan is defined as being a deferred profit sharing plan, a Registered Retired Savings Plan or what is known as a RRIF, a Registered Retirement Income Fund.

The proposed amendment that is before you today to change the law originated from a uniform bill approved by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. To date, Saskatchewan has passed a statute following this uniform bill. It was proclaimed in force in Saskatchewan on March 4, 2003, and it exempts most of these future income funds that I have referred to. The protection applies only while the funds remain in a registered plan and any early withdrawal of funds will be subject to standard debt collection methods. Similar amendments have been proposed by the Alberta government through its Law Reform Institute of Alberta.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the changes here will be a positive one and will be widely supported by the self-employed, as well as by small and medium business entrepreneurs in our Province and, in fact, it will be supported by all those who are not eligible for pension plans.

Mr. Speaker, the proposal that the government bring forward this legislation was suggested to us by the Canadian Bar Association, in addition to the Uniform Law Conference.

So, I thank hon. members for the opportunity to discuss these amendments to the act. The act will treat all future income funds the same but will make them subject to any orders, any spousal orders or child support orders issued under the Support Enforcement Act, as it should be. I look forward to debate on this amendment and I ask support of all members of the House to support the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have an opportunity just to have a few comments. It will not be lengthy at all. We will be supportive of this particular bill. It has been, as the minister says, a patchwork for some time now as to what was or was not attachable if there was a creditor. So it is good to have the uniformity there, depending on what kind of plan you have. I guess some people would go back, it depends if you are a creditor or a debtor.

Some people are of the view and have expressed that not only in the case of child support or spousal support should there be an exemption and it be attachable, that if it is a debt, period, somebody should have the right to get at it. In other words, if you go off on any kind of venture in business and entrpreneurial pursuit and you go in debt and you owe somebody money, they say: well, why should you have your pension plans protected? Because some debtor, albeit, a person who acted and dealt with you in good faith and gave you a leg up on your venture, all of a sudden could end up out hundreds of thousands of dollars too, whereas you go off - you have declared bankruptcy or done whatever in your business pursuit and yet you still get the benefit of keeping your RRSPs and so on.

A lot of people are of the view that maybe we have gone down the wrong path when it comes to how we treat debtors and creditors. I guess, again, it is a balancing act and you have to weigh it out. We want to encourage people to get into investing and to have business pursuits and so on. I guess the question becomes, should we be so adamant that we insist that if you are going to get out and try a business venture you have to put everything that you have on the line? We have made a decision, as a society, that we are prepared to - no, we cross off the right of you to accumulate something for your future and your retirement. We say, okay, we will let you off the hook there, as it were, and nobody will get at your retirement savings. I personally have some difficulty with that. I think if somebody owes money there ought to be some way that you ought to be able to pursue your legitimate debts. To me, it comes down to good faith. If you entered into business and you go and ask someone for money and they gave it to you in good faith, why should they be out of luck simply because your business venture did not work?

In any case, that is a theory guess and I am on the other side of the balance podium right now. The government has decided that you are not going to get at your RRSPs, but it is very nice to see and very pleasing, of course, that this does not apply to spousal support orders and child support orders because that, in fact, quite humanistically, is where we need to be in terms of you look after your own home first. Charity starts at home, they say, and just because you may not have a home any more in the sense of a typical marital family or whatever, your obligations to support that spouse and those family members does not cease just because you might terminate the marriage.

So, we will be voting in favour of this bill, notwithstanding some reservations about the underlying ‘attachability' of pension incomes anyway.

Thank you.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to let the minister know that we, too, support this bill. We support anything that is going to help women and their children to have justice and be treated justly in our society. We know of too many cases where women have suffered because this exemption has not been allowed, so we are very pleased to see this legislation coming in and we look forward to women and their children getting better treatment in the future.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): If the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General speaks now he will close debate at second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

I thank the Opposition House Leader and the Leader of the New Democratic Party for their support of this legislation, and I accordingly move second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 54, An Act To Amend The Judgement Enforcement Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Judgement Enforcement Act. (Bill 54)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 54, An Act To Amend The Judgement Enforcement Act, has now been read a second time.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Judgement Enforcement Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 54)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House to consider Bill 39, Bill 54, Bill 57 and Bill 58.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 39, Bill 54, Bill 57 and Bill 58, and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Bill 39.

CHAIR: The Committee is ready to hear debate on Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act No. 2.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act No. 2." (Bill 39)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

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 and 3.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 and 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 and 3 are carried.

On motion, clauses 2 and 3 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act No. 2.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act No. 2, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 39 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Bill 57, the Fish Inspection Act.

CHAIR: Bill 57, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act.

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

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour,‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 7.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 7 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 to 7 are carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 7 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative 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 57, 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 57 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I now call Bill 54, the Judgement Enforcement Act.

CHAIR: Bill 54, An Act To Amend The Judgement Enforcement Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Judgement Enforcement Act." (Bill 54)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 2 is carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: 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 Judgement Enforcement 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 54, An Act To Amend The Judgement Enforcement Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 54 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Bill 58, An Act To Implement The Convention On International Interests In Mobile Aircraft Equipment.

CHAIR: Bill 58, An Act To Implement The Convention On International Interests In Mobile Aircraft Equipment.

A bill, "An Act To Implement The Convention On International Interests In Mobile Aircraft Equipment." (Bill 58)

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 10.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 10 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 to 10 are carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 10 carried.

CLERK: Schedule A.

CHAIR: Shall the Schedule carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The Schedule is carried.

On motion, Schedule carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Implement The Convention On International Interests In Mobile Aircraft Equipment.

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 58, An Act To Implement The Convention On International Interests In Mobile Aircraft Equipment, carried without amendment.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 58 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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 against, ‘nay'.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bills 39, 57, 54, and 58 carried without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and directed him to report Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act No. 2, Bill 54, An Act To Amend The Judgement Enforcement Act, Bill 57, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act, and Bill 58, An Act To Implement The Convention On International Interests In Mobile Aircraft Equipment, passed without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

When shall these bills be read a third time?

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

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

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With leave for the third reading of these four bills, I call for the third reading now of Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act No. 2.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Government House Leader have leave to proceed to third readings?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

It is moved and seconded that Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act No. 2, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 39 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act No. 2. (Bill 39)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act No. 2, has 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 Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act No. 2," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 39)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call third reading of Bill 58, An Act To Implement The Convention On International Interests In Mobile Aircraft Equipment.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 58, An Act To Implement the Convention On International Interests In Mobile Aircraft Equipment, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 58 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Implement the Convention On International Interests In Mobile Aircraft Equipment." (Bill 58).

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 58, An Act To Implement the Convention On International Interests In Mobile Aircraft Equipment, 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 Implement the Convention On International Interests In Mobile Aircraft Equipment" read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.( Bill 58).

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call third reading of An Act To Amend The Judgement Enforcement Act. (Bill 54).

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 54, An Act To Amend The Judgement Enforcement Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 54 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Judgement Enforcement Act. (Bill 54).

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 54, An Act To Amend The Judgement Enforcement 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 Judgement Enforcement Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 54).

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call for third reading now of An Act to Amend The Fish Inspection Act. (Bill 57).

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 57, An Act to Amend The Fish Inspection Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 57 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 57, 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. (Bill 57).

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We made considerable progress today. I just want to serve notice that tomorrow, Tuesday, we will do Bills 52, 53, 55 and 56, not necessarily in that order but those four bills will be debated tomorrow.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I do now move that the House adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn until tomorrow, Tuesday, December 5 at 1:30 of the clock.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried. The House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, 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.