April 22, 2008            HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS               Vol. XLVI   No. 14


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

On Thursday, April 17, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources rose on a point of order concerning comments made on an open line show by a staff member of the Official Opposition. The minister stated that the comments of the staff member about donations being made by members of the Official Opposition amounted to an indirect violation of the rules as laid out in the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act.

"Points of order are questions raised with the view of calling attention to any departure from the Standing Orders or the customary modes of proceedings in debate or in the conduct of legislative business…" as stated in Beauchesne, 6th Edition, §317.(1); or, to put it another way, "A point of order is a question raised by a Member who believes that the rules or customary procedures of the House have been incorrectly applied or overlooked during the proceedings.", as found in Marleau and Montpetit, page 538. For example, a complaint of unparliamentary language is a legitimate point of order because language used in the House should be temperate, and unparliamentary language tends to cause disorder in the House and disrupt the proceedings.

The incident referred to by the hon. the minister, on the other hand, is not related to the proceedings of the House and, in the opinion of the Chair, does not fall within the definition of a point of order, so I must rule that there is no point of order.

Today, the House welcomes some special guests in our gallery. The House welcomes members who are here today representing the Canadian Forces and the Canadian Forces Liaison Council.

The House welcomes: Commander Rob Clark, the Commanding Officer of Canadian Forces Station, St. John's; Captain Gene Walsh, Commanding Officer of the Air Reserves; Sub-Lieutenant Vanessa Tucker from the Naval Reserves; and other Regular and Reserve force members who are in the gallery today.

From the Canadian Forces Liaison Council, the House welcomes: Mr. Miller Ayre, the current Vice-Chair of the National Canadian Forces Liaison Council and past Chair of the Newfoundland and Labrador Council; Mr. John Murphy and Mr. Greg Twinning, members of the Newfoundland and Labrador Canadian Forces Liaison Council; Lieutenant Commander Margaret Morris, who is the officer responsible for the Canadian Forces Liaison Council in this Province.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Members' statements today will be by the following members: the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North; the hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland; and, the hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to extend sincere congratulations to Jonathan Earle of Red Bay and the ACE Memorial team on placing second at the Students in Free Enterprise World Cup, known as SIFE.

Jonathan is a member of the Advancing Canadian Entrepreneurship team at Memorial, which is part of an organization that has some fifty chapters across Canada. This group is part of an international group called SIFE, which encompasses some 1,500 university campuses across forty-two countries.

Mr. Speaker, this ambitious ACE Memorial team placed second at the Students in Free Enterprise World Cup that was held in New York City last year. They also participated in the national competition in May and were chosen to represent Canada at the international competition. Some 2,200 people from more than fifty countries attended this international competition - with business executives, including some of the world's top CEOs, judging the competition.

Mr. Speaker, SIFE students are concerned with developing outreach projects that teach entrepreneurship, market economics, business ethics and finance in their communities. One of the successes that the ACE team had been involved in, in our Province, is the Moulder of Dreams, which is a pottery studio in Port Hope Simpson, in my district, for people who suffer from Myotonic Dystrophy – and, Mr. Speaker, they have done a very successful job in that particular project.

The competition started off with the opening round having eight divisions, with five or six teams in each division. They had to compete in twenty-four minutes, making presentations, and then they were advanced to different levels. The other three finalists were the United States, Albania and Nigeria, with the team from the United States taking the top honours.

Mr. Speaker, our team in Newfoundland and Labrador – who represented Canada – was the runner-up in this highly competitive world event, and I think they should be congratulated.

I ask members of the House to join me in acknowledging Jonathan Earle and the team of ACE Memorial in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize the passing of a prominent citizen from my district.

Mr. Basil Collier, a resident of Fortune, passed away peacefully in his sleep several weeks ago at the age of sixty-four, and I wish to convey condolences on behalf of my family, and all the residents of the District of Grand Bank, to his wife Millie, children Linda and Dwayne, and all of his extended family.

Mr. Speaker, Basil, or Base as he was known, made a significant contribution to public life during his stay with us, including more than thirty-five years as a Town Councillor, Mayor, and Town Clerk for the Town of Fortune.

One of the highlights of his public service in Fortune was his role in the construction and opening of the Fortune Arena.

In addition to his activity as a community volunteer and member of the Fortune Lions Club, Base was a renowned local musician and certainly, through this, he touched and influenced many lives, Mr. Speaker, including my own personally.

Mr. Speaker, Base will be sadly missed by his family, friends, and the community, and I would ask all members of the House to join me in recognizing his many years of public service and contribution to public life in our wonderful Province, and in passing along our condolences and best wishes to the Collier family.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, April 19, I had the pleasure to attend the Gideons' Eighth Annual Spring Banquet, hosted by the Conception Bay Chapter.

The event was held at Grace United Church Hall, Coley's Point, with approximately 250 people in attendance. Camp president Dwight Petten explained that Bibles are distributed in some 183 countries and in over 80 languages.

Mr. Speaker, the Gideons began placing Bibles in hotels in 1908, and this past year Canadian Gideons distributed 646,000 Bibles in Canada and another 1,674,000 in other parts of the world.

The Conception Bay Camp, a 100 per cent volunteer group, raised $18,000 on Saturday evening to purchase Bibles - truly a tremendous success.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating all Gideons on a job well done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Adventure 50+ Club in the Town of Paradise on recently celebrating its twenty-first anniversary.

The Adventure 50+ Club is a great organization that keeps its members active in many exciting events. They provide a community service that encourages people with similar interests to get together and take part in different activities. This is so very important to our older residents who find themselves in a situation whereby they have raised their families and now have more time to dedicate to themselves. The club is a great way to develop new friendships as well.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the Paradise Adventure 50+ Club on celebrating its twenty-first anniversary and wish them all the best for years to come.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the efforts of the Bay Bulls and the Bauline Regional Games Committee in hosting the first ever Regional Games held last summer. This event was completed, organized and promoted by the dedicated volunteers of the region who, in recognizing the importance of good healthy living for our young people, took on the challenge of putting this event together over a short period.

This event highlighted that community and regional spirit is alive and well, as all communities of the region came together to participate, both volunteers and our youth, from Bauline to Bay Bulls.

A selection of sporting events included: soccer being played at the soccer pitch in Bay Bulls, softball in Witness Bay, and ball hockey being held at the Southern Shore Arena in Mobile, to name a few.

In total we had 210 young people, ages four to sixteen, from Bauline to Bay Bulls, attend this tremendous event over a three day period, which gave our youth a chance to experience - some for the first time - the benefits of participating in sport for the love of participation and friendship. This event has built on, and will continue to build on, the sporting tradition of the Southern Shore.

I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating the Regional Games Committee, which included: Ken Williams, Scott Penney, Carl Tee, Loyola O'Driscoll, Andy Walsh, Darlene Reid, Cathy Power, Valerie Power and Luke Bidgood, for the outstanding contribution they have made to this region in hosting the first ever Regional Games.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Linda (Lin) Collier on being selected as the 2007 recipient of the Susie Day Volunteer of the Year Award as announced earlier this year.

This honour is given once a year by the Newfoundland and Labrador Laubach Literacy Council, and since its introduction in 2001, to recognize the outstanding volunteer services of individuals for their dedication to literacy.

Linda Collier is yet another such dedicated volunteer. Linda started her work as a volunteer with the Bay St. George Literacy Council eight years ago and has worked countless hours with the organization and its individuals. She has held several positions with the organization and she is quoted as saying "I truly believe I have found my niche. It's a fantastic group of people I work with here as everybody gets along so well and it's so important to be helping people improve their lives."

In 2006, as a student assistant, Linda matched thirty-six students with thirty-three tutors who amassed 2,368 hours in volunteer time.

Linda is very committed to literacy and has a great desire and enthusiasm for organizing and administering many council and association events. She returned to school this year to study the two-year Community Studies Program at the College of the North Atlantic in Stephenville. Even so, she still remains active with the Bay St. George Literacy Council as Office Manager, Assistant Student Coordinator of the Annual Volunteer Luncheon, Chair of the Advisory Committee, literacy representative on the Rural Secretariat and a substitute tutor.

Linda was also recognized for her selfless contributions at the Annual Stephen Awards Banquet last year in Stephenville by receiving the Volunteer Appreciation Stephen Award for her twenty-six year contribution to community life in the Bay St. George region.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating Linda Collier on being recognized for her wonderful contribution to literacy in the Province.

Félicitations Linda et continue le bon travail.

Merci Monsieur le Président.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to announce that in this year's Budget our government will eliminate the 15 per cent retail sales tax on insurance premiums.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this is yet another concrete example of our government putting money directly back into the pockets of taxpayers in this Province. This will cost the government approximately $94 million this year and an estimated $75 million annually thereafter. This substantial investment will benefit each and every individual, corporation, small business, community, municipality and volunteer organization in this Province and our government is very proud to make it happen.

The sales tax on insurance premiums was implemented in the 1960s. In April, 1997, the government of the day harmonized the provincial retail sales tax with the GST and adopted the same tax base as the GST. However, the sale of insurance is not subject to GST-HST. The previous government retained the retail sales tax on insurance premiums, and increased the rate to 15 per cent, leading many people to believe that HST and the RST on insurance premiums were, in fact, the same tax.

Mr. Speaker, only two other provinces had imposed a similar tax but with a much lower rate and a narrower base. Those provinces do not have a harmonized sales tax.

While we need to impose taxes to provide health care, education and other public services, this particular tax just did not seem fair and many have advocated for its elimination. I know the Minister of Finance has heard it directly from people throughout the Province in his pre-budget consultations.

When we assumed office in 2003, we found ourselves in an extremely difficult fiscal position, heading potentially for a billion dollar deficit. We were not in a position to eliminate this tax. As circumstances improved, we had many priorities to address before we could address this problem.

We have made significant inroads in dealing with our infrastructure deficit including substantial investments into our hospitals, long-term care facilities, schools, post-secondary institutions, roads, bridges, ferries and many more.

We have implemented a Poverty Reduction Strategy that is held up as the national model. We have assisted seniors in many ways and we have created more economic opportunities for our people. Last year we lowered personal income tax rates to become the lowest in Atlantic Canada. We recognize that competitive tax regimes are critical to economic growth and stimulation and also inward investment.

Mr. Speaker, the elimination of this tax will be retroactive to January 1, 2008.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We will ask insurers to refund any tax that has been collected from January 1, 2008 until now, on new contracts and renewals. I appreciate that this will place a small compliance burden on insurers. However, the insurance industry has lobbied long and hard for the elimination of this tax and I am confident that they will be pleased to comply.

Given our Province's ever improving financial position, we also know that we, as a government, must continue to give back to the people of this Province. As Newfoundland and Labrador continues to prosper and grow, our people must benefit in meaningful and tangible ways. Today's announcement, Mr. Speaker, does exactly that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is, indeed, good news. I can see why the members opposite would be excited about this announcement. I am sure all of the people in the Province will be excited to hear this news today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, for some reason I feel like I am seeing the opening act to the Budget that is going to come up in the next week or two. So, hopefully, we will see about $1 billion in new investments made into people and infrastructure throughout our Province, and certainly, this is a good first start. It makes me believe that persistence pays off, there is absolutely no doubt. I think, as an Opposition, we have raised this issue in press releases alone twenty-four times in the last number of years, as well as raising it in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, it was only on Friday we tabled a private member's motion with the Government House Leader that we would debate tomorrow, calling on the government to eliminate the tax on insurance in the Province and did not even have an opportunity to table it in the House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, I say the persistence and the determination paid off for the Opposition this time. The result is a government that listened and acted, I say to hon. members, and we certainly acknowledge that.

Mr. Speaker, I can only acknowledge that this insurance would be applicable to people who have car insurance, home insurance, life insurance, marine insurance, business insurance in the Province; having said that, it would affect almost everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think it is important to point out that this was highlighted in a review that was done in 2005-2006 on insurance in our Province which indicated that the tax rate on insurance in Newfoundland and Labrador at that time was the highest among Canadian provinces, and indeed, the highest amount nations in the G-7 countries.

 

So, Mr. Speaker, we certainly applaud, I am sure, the many other groups out there that lobbied for this as well: the Federation of Business -

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

I ask the hon. member to conclude her remarks.

 

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

The Consumer Advocate and the Community Services Council, in particular, and to say to government I am glad that you are listening, recognizing that this is important, that it will contribute to many families in the Province (inaudible).

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

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

I will promise not to take half the time of my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition.

Thank you very much.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the government has finally seen the light with regard to what was an unjust tax, the light that was being shone on them by both the Official Opposition, the party that I represent for a number of years before I came into the House, and by the people of this Province. Yes, it is true, the minister heard people speak to him about this issue, but so did my office. Many of the phone calls I have gotten in the short time that I have been in the House, since the fall of 2006, have dealt with this very issue. You are listening to the people and that is good. I, too, as I said the other day, am really awaiting the Budget. I am dying to see what else you are listening to because that is why you are there, that is why we are here.

Yes, I thank you. I thank you on behalf of the people. I thank you on behalf of my predecessor who spoke to this, and I thank you on my behalf for finally taking the action. I do hope - the one thing I have concern about when the Premier says he is confident that the industry is going to willingly take on the task they will have to do with regard to the rebate, I hope they are as willing to do it as you feel confident that they are. I am sure they will. They have wanted this as well. Let's make sure that happens smoothly for the consumers.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge April 22 as Earth Day, a day dedicated to protecting and sustaining the environment. This day marks the anniversary of the birth of the modern environmental movement in 1970, and the beginning of an effort that now spans more than 175 countries, with participation from more than 1 billion people.

There are many activities, Mr. Speaker, designed to commemorate Earth Day across the globe. On a local level, I participated in a clean-up of St. Phillip's Beach on Sunday, as Ocean Net launched its new "Friends of Beaches Network" in celebration of Earth Day 2008. This new program incorporates the organization's primary focus, namely that of beach, shoreline and underwater cleanup. More than $12,000 in funding was recently provided by our government to this group, as their efforts coincide with the objective of our Climate Change Action Plan to increase public awareness around climate change issues.

Mr. Speaker, the issues of climate change and global warming are the focal topics for this Earth Day. Organizations such as the Earth Day Network are mobilizing millions of people around the world behind a Call for Climate, their global warming action theme. Here in Newfoundland and Labrador, we are also actively tackling the issue of climate change. We recognize that we do not have to reduce our quality of life, but we do have to change the way that we live.

Our government has facilitated workshops on climate change for municipalities, with a particular focus on impacts and adaptation. Earlier this month, Mr. Speaker, I attended a workshop, jointly sponsored by our government and the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, as they are known, ICLEI, which guided municipalities in the assessment of their response to climate change. Furthermore, our Climate Change Action Plan will be updated this year and will focus on applying specific targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We will also be developing an adaptation strategy for the Province, including a separate strategy for our Northern communities, under the Northern Strategic Plan. Our energy plan will also help ensure that our legacy is that of a sustainable economy powered by renewable, clean energy.

As we continue to pursue our greener efforts, and businesses and organizations work in partnership with us, we will reduce our environmental footprint and be part of the culture of conservation in Newfoundland and Labrador. The environment belongs to all of us, and it is up to all of us as individuals, groups, businesses and government to lead by example and do our utmost to protect and enhance it. I trust we will all keep this in mind for this Earth Day, today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement, and to say I think it is important that we all remember Earth Day and take part wherever possible.

I know when the minister mentioned about the clean up of the beach in St. Phillip's, I am sure the Member for Harbour Main, as well as myself, remember the wonderful group (inaudible) out of Ascension Collegiate, how they go around and clean up various facilities over the years.

It is amazing how everything has come full circle. I remember growing up in Placentia Bay, the only thing we worried about the climate, we were wondering if the fog was going to lift so that we could see the sun for half an hour before dark, but now we know how tremendous an issue that is. It is good to know that the minister and government has been dealing with the municipalities and others involved, so that this can be dealt with in a more responsive manner.

The only thing I will say to the minister, we know there are several issues in our Province that have to dealt with - I know they are being dealt with - but recycling, our water quality, the environmental issues in Placentia Bay from the fishermen and others. I am sure after a period of time it will come together, but we wanted to say that we agree with this statement and we want to thank you for the opportunity to speak.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advanced copy of her statement.

As the minister points out, the focal topics for Earth Day are climate change and global warming. While I appreciate the things that the minister has spoken to and the activity that she took part in on Sunday, I think the Province could also celebrate Earth Day in a much bigger way by announcing that it will take action regarding the instillation of scrubbers in the Holyrood Generating Plant. This is one of our worst polluting industries in the Province. We should not wait another ten years for the Lower Churchill project to come on stream before we get rid of this polluting energy source.

Another thing the government could announce would be a home retrofit program which would also help reduce greenhouse gases by lowering the amount of energy that would be used in home heating. So, let's really celebrate Earth Day and put in place these things which have a real impact on climate change in this Province. As well, it is a great economic development initiative to get involved in because in the creation of energy efficiency programs we get employment, we get training, and we have opportunities for new enterprises, jobs and skills to be developed in rural areas. Let's follow the lead of New Brunswick with their NB Energy Corporation and get involved in these programs.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week I met with the head of laboratory services at Eastern Health, Dr. Denic, to discuss issues surrounding recruitment and retention of pathologists. Without immediate action, there will be seven vacant pathology positions at Eastern Health by this summer. Mr. Speaker, the Premier has stated previously that to attract people, like when he recruited Mr. Ed Martin to work at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, that we must pay competitive rates with the industry.

So, I ask the Premier today: Why are we not paying our pathologists a competitive, national wage in order to recruit and retain their expertise in the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Members of this House may recall last year when I stood here, some time around the middle of May, and announced that government was implementing a stipend to be paid to pathologists in the Province that will bring them on par with the oncologists who were practicing in the Province. At that time I think I indicated to this House, Mr. Speaker, that with that stipend - in addition to the salary they had already negotiated with their association and with government - it brought them much more inline with other jurisdictions in the country and put us in a position where now we were going to be much more competitive on a compensation perspective and a salary perspective; add to those the other benefits with respect to vacations, leave, education leaves and other kinds of benefits paid to the pathologists, should make us competitive in a national marketplace, I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that the stipend he refers to has not allowed them to be competitive in the wage rates with the rest of the country. He also knows that the stipend does not contribute to further pensionable benefits and so on for these individuals.

Mr. Speaker, I know that each of the health boards are responsible for the recruitment and retention efforts within their various health care corporations, but I ask the minister today, outside of providing the monetary package, does government play any other direct role in the recruitment or retention of these professionals in the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago government funded a position, recruiting position, as a part of our Recruitment and Retention Strategy. We put in place a program where we would have a dedicated recruiter to work with the Regional Health Authorities in recruiting positions for the Province. We also have a program in place where we provide bursaries. We provide financial support to people entering the residency programs and these are part of the provincial government's initiatives as we support the work of the Regional Health Authorities.

So, through this position recruiter office that we have established, they are working very closely with their four authorities in ensuring that we have an ample supply of physicians for the Province, but also work with the authorities in identifying retention strategies, I say, too, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The resignation of Dr. Beverley Carter will have a dramatic impact on subspecialty breast cancer pathology. She was the lead consultant, not only for Eastern Health but for the entire Province. There is uncertainty as to how this subspecialty will be able to continue after her departure in June.

So, I ask the minister: Has the department looked at how subspecialty breast cancer pathology can continue at Eastern Health in order to serve the entire Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite raises an interesting point. I am glad she has brought her attention back to it because this is something I have been saying in this House and outside, and something that the Premier has said many times before. We have had the recent resignation of a pathologist and one of the things that the other pathologists are saying is that they are concerned about the level of attention and criticism they have been receiving recently as a result of some discussions around ER-PR testing which took place some time ago.

I say, Mr. Speaker, all of us as a Province, not just as a government and as Opposition, but as a Province we have a vested interest in ensuring that we could create and support a very supportive climate for the physicians that we have in our Province.

One of the things that we were challenged by in the recent past is a lot of the public criticism, a lot of the public scrutiny, that has gone on of our health system, and it creates a climate where physicians will frequently feel pressured that they are under a microscope constantly for the work that they do, and people are questioning the quality of the work they do.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: I will, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

That is why I say I am glad the member opposite is finally realizing that some of the attention that her and other people have been bringing to this issue, and some of the undue criticism levied at individuals, creates a circumstance where it creates a bit of uncertainty, and I say, Mr. Speaker, (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the minister needs to realize that the real circumstance we have here is: we have an inadequate benefit package to attract these professionals in the Province when it comes to competing with the rest of the country.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, I took the time to sit down and meet with these pathologists, in fact, to better understand the situation that they are in and what they are confronted with. I might ask if he has done the same to date.

Mr. Speaker, in our briefings last week with Eastern Health, it was indicated to us that pathologists obviously rely heavily on the work of technical support workers in the lab. They also indicated that there was a shortage in these positions.

I ask the minister if he is aware of a shortage of technical support staff in these labs, if he can tell me what that shortage is, and what recruitment efforts are being made?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I understand from an analysis of the potential retirements in our laboratory services throughout Newfoundland and Labrador that, with the current age bands of those who are currently employed in the system, in the next five to ten years there is a large number of anticipated retirements.

Very specifically today, neither one of our authorities have brought to my attention that they are dealing with a severe shortage of technologists. There are some locations throughout the Province where they may periodically have some difficulty recruiting laboratory technologists, but as of today I am not aware that we have a serious shortage of technologists in the Province. I know we are planning for some retirements in the next five or ten years, but today I am not certain that, in Eastern Health particularly, we are experiencing a shortage of technologists.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hope the minister is correct in the information, but I would ask that he undertake to check that out and to provide the full information.

Mr. Speaker, according to George Tilley's testimony last week at the Cameron inquiry, there were great expectations that Eastern Health do more with less. He indicated that savings of between $8 million and $10 million were expected through the amalgamation process of health boards in the Eastern Region.

I ask the minister: Why were four mega-boards created in 2004 with cost-saving measures in mind but no transition plan or resources to ensure its success?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, before I answer the question, I just want to put in context her commentary about the mega-boards. This has been repeated time and time again, a reference to mega-boards. Any issue that comes up in health care today, the first things is, oh, that is because of the consolidation of heath boards in 2005. Everything that happens is attributed to an amalgamation that occurred in 2005, and nothing could be further from the truth. When you talk about mega-boards, it is as if there is something mystical about something we have done in this Province.

If you look around this country, New Brunswick, a couple of weeks ago, announced that they are going to have two boards. The population of that province is somewhere between 750,000 and 800,000 people, and they are going to have two. So, if they split it down the middle, that is 400,000 apiece.

Eastern Health, 293,000 people is what they serve, and some tertiary programs they have for the entire Province. If you look around the country, Alberta, just a couple of days ago, announced that they are going to move towards a further consolidation of their boards and have hinted at having only one for an entire Province of 1.6 million or 1.7 million people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I am trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is put in context here references to mega-boards as if there is some problem associated with having large boards in the Province. When we look across this country, it is a pattern that has been established because everybody realizes there are some economies of scale to be achieved by having larger boards.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mega does not mean unsuccessful, Minister, in my book, and I am sure there are many large boards out there that do not have problems. We are just identifying some that may exist here.

In fact, we are hearing that the transition is not complete within Eastern Health, of these board structures, and I ask the minister now if resources will be provided to Eastern Health to help them complete the transition process so that this restructuring can be completed successfully.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that the member has been hearing that the transition has not been completed, because I have said it in this House about ten times during this sitting alone. I have said, very clearly, that transitions and the bringing together of organizations take a period of time. This only happened in 2005. I have said many, many times that anywhere between three to five years would be considered a reasonable period of time to allow a full transition to occur. This is 2008, three years after that, so we sill have a year or two before all these transition issues are being dealt with.

I share by way of example, last week, in this House, the example of the bargaining units coming together. It is a major piece of work. It cannot happen overnight. It will probably not be concluded over the course of the next twelve or eighteen months. That is just one example of something that is still very much in transition and a natural part, I say, Mr. Speaker, a natural part, of bringing organizations together and dealing with the many challenges of bringing them under one governance model.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister, because I have been told that there are significant outstanding employee arbitration cases within Eastern Health, I ask if the minister can confirm for me today that there are approximately 3,000 outstanding arbitration cases that have not been dealt with.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: One of the things, as a government, and as your government previously, we created health authorities to deal with the day-to-day operations of our health services in the system. Human resources and labour relations issues are a part of their responsibility. The number of grievances they may have, the number of grievances that may have been filed, the number of arbitrations that they may be dealing with today, and the whole issue of their relationship with the various collective bargaining units that they are dealing with, is an issue dealt with by the human resources and labour relations people.

I have no idea at all, Mr. Speaker, nor would I, in my position as minister, have an idea on any given day the number of grievances outstanding in any one of our regional health authorities. It is an issue, obviously, that is important to the member opposite and I will undertake to find out exactly how many there are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That was all I required, some confirmation as to whether that is the case. Obviously, morale in the workplace is very important when it comes to recruiting and retaining employees.

Mr. Speaker, in April the government released – actually, April 18, I think it was, Friday, or Thursday - the government released a report completed by the Fire Commissioner for ten health facilities in the Province, after the media and the Opposition pushed for this review.

My questions are for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. The report revealed that seven of these ten facilities required sprinkler systems, nine out of ten required work on fire separation and fire alarm systems, and all of these facilities required some level of action.

I would like to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs: Why did you issue a release on March 6 stating that there were no immediate fire and safety concerns when it was obvious from this April report that there was a multitude of concerns in these facilities?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the protocol, and what happened with the timing of that release.

In that release, I said there were no immediate concerns brought to the attention of the fire commissioner. What happens is that, when the fire inspections are taking place, if there are any concerns, they are directed to the fire commissioner's office. I was correct in saying none of those concerns were brought to the attention of the fire commissioner at that time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the fire commissioner's report also revealed an overall weakness in staff training. In 66 per cent of the provincial health facilities that he reviewed, he indicated that ten of these facilities examined required staff training; however, once again, you, Minister, told the media that people working in these health facilities knew what they had to do in case of any emergency that was fire safety related.

I have to ask: On what basis were you able to make those statements?

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

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, when I received that report, and I had a conversation with the fire commissioner, that was one of the things that we needed to implement. We needed to implement seminars for life safety, evacuation procedures and life safety codes within the structure itself.

The fire commissioner came back and said to me, what we need to do is conduct seminars so that each health facility that is owned by the government would attend those seminars, and they would go back and implement the fire safety regulations there.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are taking a proactive approach in terms of that, and that will be corrected in the near future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the report also cited that the Labrador City hospital is severely lacking in fire protection and life safety features. I know it is government's intention to replace this facility, but at the present time it is still in operation, providing health care services to the people in that area. In fact, the commissioner has ordered a two-person shift to patrol the facility, I think, on a twenty-four hour basis.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Why didn't government discover these life and safety issues before now? Are there no protocols in place whatsoever for the guaranteed inspection and reports on these facilities on a regular basis?

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

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, this facility did not have these deficiencies overnight. These were accumulating over years.

What we are going to do, Mr. Speaker – and the Opposition Leader is right, there are foot patrols in that building right now. Any immediate concerns that were there, for example, when the fire inspector went through that facility - if lights had to be put on, and whatever, some small issues - they were addressed immediately. Right now, they are given sixty to ninety days to implement the deficiencies that are there, and they have twenty-four months to install the sprinkler systems.

Mr. Speaker, we are working towards it; we are going to make it safe. In talking to the fire commissioner today, he is quite comfortable with the patrols that are on the floors today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister again: Are there any protocols in place for the inspection of these government-owned facilities? If not, will there be some put in place to at least say they have to be inspected annually, every three years, four years, or whatever the case may be? I am not aware that there are any regulations right now.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, the regulation we have today is that there is an MOU with the local fire departments to carry out the inspections, and with different inspectors in Government Services. After getting this report, I instructed FES-NL to go back, look at our protocols, examine them, change them if they need to, and make sure that this does not happen again, so that I am not on this floor again trying to defend anything like this.

This is something we are going to look at. To the Opposition Leader, yes, protocols will be put in place. We are going to look at the overall policy to make sure, again, as I said, that it does not happen again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My next question is for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

I wanted to indicate to him that over the past three months the Department of Health and Community Services have been told repeatedly by our office, the Opposition office, that the phone number of an opposition researcher was published on an application form for the Prescription Drug Program.

I am only raising it because there have been a lot of calls coming in to our office, messages being left on message machines with private and confidential information, and we have reported it consecutively to the department. Nothing has been done. We are still receiving phone calls.

I want to raise it for you, Minister, to look into this, to see what the problem is, and to ensure that the number is removed. Are you aware of it?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was not sure if it was a question or a statement. If it was a question, yes, I was aware of it. As you pointed out, it is in printed material and, unfortunately, the printed material has been disseminated some time ago so there may still be some copies of that in circulation.

The number, as I understand, that has now been corrected. The unfortunate thing is, you may still get a few more calls because the information is out there in print.

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, it is the mandate of the Department of Environment and Conservation to monitor and analyze the chemical quality of community water supplies in this Province.

On January 31, the Minister of the Department of Environment issued a non-consumption water advisory to eleven communities. The next evening, the minister disclosed that these communities had been using contaminated chlorine to treat their water supplies for more than two weeks.

My question to the minister is: Why did the issue of contaminated chlorine not get picked up by officials in the Water Resources Management Division in that two week time frame?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conversation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government is really committed to safe and clean drinking water. I certainly do not want to put words into the Premier's mouth, but I do know how committed he is to this and he has made it a top priority for him, as he said publicly as well.

The instance that you refer to is one that did happen. These are private transactions that occur between the municipalities. Municipalities are responsible for carrying out the water testing in their communities. Certainly, this was a private transaction that occurred between the municipality and the particular company. We did follow up. We did have an operator training session with the municipalities and they are very aware now of what they need to look for in the future so that this does not happen again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, according to the supplier of the chlorine, municipal workers in New Brunswick first discovered this problem and alerted officials with Health Canada as early as January 25. Municipalities in this Province were not notified until a recall was issued on January 29 and the minister issued the non-consumption advisory on January 31.

I ask the minister: Can she tell this House when she was notified about the contamination, who notified her, and does she feel the reporting process was adequate?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I did just mention, these are private transactions between the municipality and the particular business involved. Officials within my department became aware of this late on a Wednesday evening. I am not sure of the exact date, at the moment, but I know it was late on a Wednesday evening. We became aware of it. At that time there were calls put out to municipalities.

First of all we had to determine if, in fact, this particular supplier had sold it to any of the municipalities in our Province. Once that was done, we immediately acted to call all of these municipalities and tell them that they were in possession of chlorine which they shouldn't be using. So, I am quite confident that all protocols were followed.

At the same time, the business that did sell the particular product, they were also contacting municipalities at the same time. We just did it as an extra step, a precautionary step. We, in fact, took it a little step further and contacted Health Canada and asked them to do an emergency risk assessment of this as soon as possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the minister that this was simply a matter of luck, I guess, that the health and the environmental risks associated with drinking this chemical was at a low amount. The result could have been very difficult if the chemical involved had been more dangerous.

I ask the minister. Now that you have received this startling wake-up call on the inadequacies in the system, what new procedures are being put in place to prevent more serious incidents from happening in the future?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, just last month there was an operator, trainer and education program in Gander where we pull all municipal operators together for a conference, at virtually no cost to them. We highlighted at that conference, again, the importance of ensuring that the product that they are using is a certified product. Our training session, in fact, is recognized throughout North America. We have the Walkerton community using our training modules. Also, just recently, we were contacted by West Virginia to also mimic and use our training facilities as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: I would like to let the hon. member opposite know that this is the only Province in Canada that does water quality testing. In fact, last year we tested 2,950 samples. We are recognized nationally for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, I know the officials in her department tests the water, but I have to say to her, I spoke with officials in various communities where inspectors have not gone into the actual facility where the chlorine enters the water system from as high as seven to eight years.

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that emerged with this story was the fact that smaller communities were using different types of chlorine. A follow-up investigation by Health Canada revealed that forty-four communities were using different chlorines that were not certified by the National Sanitation Foundation.

I ask the minister: Why were officials in the department, where she is minister, unaware of the use of non-certified chlorine by forty-four municipalities?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Upon knowing that this chlorine was contaminated, we did ask Health Canada to do the emergency risk assessment. As a result of that, they did come to find out the product that most of these municipalities were using was, in fact, a contaminated product and it was not certified.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, these are private transactions between the municipalities and the business. We do have an operator training session but there are over 500 communities in the Province, and hundreds of those do check the chlorine on a daily basis. It is our role to ensure that they are properly trained to do so, and we did just that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in recent documents tabled at the Cameron Inquiry we have learned that the former CEO of Eastern Health believed that the anticipated savings on which Treasury Board based its recommendations for restructuring our health system were unrealistic. He also expressed concern that the expectations of Treasury Board for the new health authority were beyond reach.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will he verify that the main reason for the reorganizing of the health boards was based on recommendations by Treasury Board as a cost-cutting measure, rather than on an overall analysis of the needs of the health care system?

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

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, any consolidation of health authorities across this country, including Newfoundland and Labrador, would have been based on a couple of very basic fundamental understandings. One is there should be some economies of scale to be achieved by bringing together organizations. You are able to have one administrative group, single payroll system, single accounting functions, single purchasing functions - those sorts of day-to-day things.

The other thing, which is more important, I say, Mr. Speaker, much more important, is an ability for one authority, or two authorities, or smaller groups of authorities, to better coordinate the delivery of health programs across our Province. Historically, we have had community health services, institutional services, both acute care and long-term care. If you look at how health services are organized and delivered across this country it makes a lot more sense, it creates a greater efficiency and a much better health system for the people of the Province, when you have a better coordination of services - which you are able to achieve with one government structure, one single entity, rather than have multiple organizations with different mandates, providing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

- all trying to coordinate services across each other's boundaries, and I say, Mr. Speaker, that is the first and primary -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Once again, I did not get an answer from the Minister of Health, so I will continue. In some of the documents that were tabled last week, we have Mr. Tilley being quoted as talking about the recommendations of Treasury Board and Treasury Board making recommendations with regard to personnel, with regard to loss of management, making recommendations that he did not believe were the purview of Treasury Board because they did not have the knowledge of how the health care system works.

So my question is: Is the current reorganization that you keep telling us, minister, is ongoing, is this now going to come under recommendations from the Ministry of Health, rather than cost saving measures and recommendations from Treasury Board?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, obviously, you have never sat in government, you would not understand exactly how it works. Within our system we have four authorities, and they have a responsibility for delivery of programs and services. At the Department of Health and Community Services we provide broad policy direction. We secure money through the annual budgetary process to provide the authorities with money to delivery those programs and services. Within government, there are multiple ministries, multiple departments. Each of us has a role. The role that Treasury Board will play in identifying - to help us with the budgetary process. They have a certain degree of expertise in the areas of labour relations and organizational structures. So, they are part of a team, I say, Mr. Speaker. They are part of a collective team.

Government overall, including the Department of Health and Community Services, Treasury Board, working collaboratively with the four authorities, make decisions on a day-to-day basis, on an annual basis with respect to the future of health services in each region -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: - and how those programs should be delivered and the level of budgets that they need to be able to support those, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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

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

I will put it very plainly. Is there a document that shows that there was a plan in place dealing with programs that was given to the boards to start working with, and if not, why not?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, when the four authorities were created back in 2005 and under the transparency legislation, we would have provided them a mandate. We would have put in place the boards. We would have asked them to put together their organizational structure to put in place and we would have asked them to develop long-term strategies. They would put together their action plans for a three-year period. I think the first one was 2005 to 2008. We are in the midst now of developing one for 2008 to 2011. They present those to government as their broad future directions that they would envisage taking their boards and their respective regions. They would then ask us for the necessary funding to be able to support that program and support those initiatives, and that is what the boards would have done.

So, when we created them in 2005, we would have asked them, now you have your new regions, you have a broad mandate, develop for us a strategy now for you to implement the implementation of the programs that you have been mandated to provide in your respective regions -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, that is the kind of relationship we would have had and we would have asked them to do that for us. We would have looked forward to their submission of that strategy and we would have provided the funding consistent with our fiscal capacity to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for questions and answers has expired.

Before the Chair asks for Presenting Reports, the Chair would like to recognize the Mayor of Placentia, Mr. Bill Hogan, a long time member of this House. As well, he is accompanied by the Chief Administrative Officer for the Town of Placentia, Mr. Ed O'Keefe.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week, I asked some questions of the Minister of Justice and he asked where I got my facts and information. Just for the record, I will table the nine different reports from different agencies, correctional services in Canada and in this Province, from which I collected the information.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member knows full well that private members don't table documents in the House. If the hon. member wants to share documents privately with the Minister of Justice or some other member, I suggest he do that, but not to table them.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 65(f), I would like to move that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 65(f), I would like to move that the following members constitute the Standing Orders Committee. It would be yourself Your Honour, the Member for Bonavista South, as Chair; the Member for Mount Pearl North; the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile; and myself as Government House Leader, the Member for Baie Verte-Springdale. I would like that that motion be put for consideration immediately, if the House would concur.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favor, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Further Notices of Motion.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 63, subsection (3), normally notice of a Private Member's Motion would be given on a Monday but yesterday, of course, the House was closed due to the St. George's Day holiday. We had, in fact, sent our Private Member's Motion to the Government House Leader last Friday but that was preempted with the Premier's statement today concerning the insurance tax. In view of that, we have a new motion and I guess technically we require leave in order to enter it, because the House was closed yesterday. Do we have leave?

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

The hon. member, by leave.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a Private Member's Motion moved today for debate tomorrow, moved by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile and it is seconded by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

WHEREAS this Province has seen a huge increase in offshore oil revenue as a result of increased oil prices; and

WHEREAS many people, especially those on fixed incomes, are suffering the consequences of increases in fuel prices; and

WHEREAS this Province has the highest tax on gasoline in the country and this puts undue hardship on consumers and makes it more difficult for businesses in this Province to compete;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House urges government to reduce the tax on gasoline in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

 

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion 1, first reading of Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act To Provide For – I think I am reading the wrong one there.

The hon. the Government House Leader, if he would remind me again.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do is Motions, and Motion 1, which is first reading of Bill 23, that An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act now be read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment shall have leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act, Bill 23, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 23, and 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.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act," carried. (Bill 23)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act. (Bill 23)

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

When shall the said bill be read a second time? Now? Tomorrow?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 23 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Motion 2, first reading of Bill 22, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999, Bill 22, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 22, and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999," carried. (Bill 22)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999. (Bill 22)

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

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 22 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion 3, first reading of Bill 24, An Act To Amend The Mental Health Care And Treatment Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Mental Health Care And Treatment Act, Bill 24, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 24, and 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.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Mental Health Care And Treatment Act," carried. (Bill 24)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Mental Health Care And Treatment Act. (Bill 24)

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

When shall the said bill be read a second time? Now? Tomorrow?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 24 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to move now to Orders of the Day and call Order 3, which is second reading of Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act To Provide For Leave For Reservists.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act To Provide For Leave For Reservists, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act To Provide For Leave For Reservists." (Bill 1)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to stand in this House and introduce an important amendment to the Labour Standards Act.

Bill 1, Mr. Speaker, represents this government's interest and its commitment to protect the men and women who bravely serve our country in the capacity of a military reservist.

During the last election, Mr. Speaker, our blueprint commitment was clear on this point, and today we bring forward the policy direction which is now before us for full consideration by the House of Assembly.

We all recognize, Mr. Speaker, the increased demands being placed on military reservists and their families. They can be called upon to serve and support the country's interests overseas as well as here at home. I am sure that my hon. colleagues here in this House today would agree that anyone offering themselves in such a valiant and brave manner should not ever have to add to this risk by placing their domestic job on the line in order to serve their country, and this the fundamental reason, Mr. Speaker, for Bill 1: to ensure that those who travel, or have to go to serve our country, do not have to worry about their employment when they return home.

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Forces Liaison Council, or the CFLC, is a group of people who are here with us in the House today, who, working with the support of the Canadian Military, volunteer their time to promote the Reserve Force. The CFLC makes an important contribution by encouraging employer support for reservists and highlighting the profitable partnerships that exist between employers and reservists, given the transfer of leadership, management and technical skills that occur between a reservist's military and civilian occupation. As a former employer myself, Mr. Speaker, of military reservists, I can attest to their leadership, their professionalism, and their dedication to not only their career but also their employers.

I would like to acknowledge the input and advice of the Newfoundland and Labrador Branch of the Canadian Force Liaison Council, who shared their expertise and insight with government in drafting these important amendments to the Labour Standards Act. I thank you very much for sharing your knowledge with us, and I look forward to continuing our dialogue with them as we move forward with implementation.

I should also note, Mr. Speaker, that we have consulted with employer groups and labour groups, as well as with the Canadian Forces Liaison Council.

Mr. Speaker, there are many employers, government included, here in our Province who right now voluntarily recognize leave provisions for employees working in tandem with the Canadian Forces Liaison Council. There is a statement of support that has been signed by hundreds of employers, government included, with the Canadian Forces Liaison Council, and from government's perspective over the past five years we have had about twenty government employees who have availed of leave opportunities to serve their country.

Mr. Speaker, I will now turn to specific amendments contained in the bill.

The amendments being proposed include provisions to provide job protection entitlement for military reservists deployed for international or domestic operations, or for training required for imminent deployment. This is in accordance with the Class C Reserve Service description contained in the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces of the National Defence Act.

Basically, Mr. Speaker, this means a reservist who is temporarily classified as a Regular Force member will be entitled to leave. Eligible service will also included a provision for treatment, recovery or rehabilitation relating to a physical or mental health problem resulting from deployment or training required for imminent deployment.

Under the proposed changes an employee is required to give their employer written notice of their request for unpaid leave sixty days prior to deployment. Circumstances may exist where this is not possible, and in these cases as much notice as is reasonably possible should be provided.

The employee is required to inform their employer of the start and end date of deployment and of any changes subsequently to that point that affects the end date of the deployment.

In recognition of the needs of employers, provision is made for a right to refuse the leave request in those circumstances where it can be demonstrated that the leave will result in undo hardship that jeopardizes the employer's ability to continue to function.

When leave is disputed on this point, then the Director of Labour Standards with the Labour Relations Agency will act as a final arbitrator and exercise adjudication provisions under the act. I should also mention, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Forces Liaison Council also helps as an intermediary in situations such as this.

Consistent with existing leave provisions contained in section 43.7 of the Labour Standards Act, the contract of employment at the time the leave began is protected. It will resume upon the reservist return to work, such as their wages, their duties, their benefits and their position are not less beneficial than that which existed prior to the deployment.

Mr. Speaker, in summary, these are the major elements of this bill. I look forward to the debate and the successful implementation of these important changes for the benefit of military reservists under the act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words on Bill 1, the first bill which the Government House Leader introduced in this new sitting of the House of Assembly following the election. It is good to see that we are now in a position to actually debate it. I would think there would not be much debate because, certainly from the Opposition, at least, we are totally in favour of the bill and we will be voting for it. I think it makes good sense, not only common sense, but good sense. It is necessary.

We had an example, I do believe it originated out of Stephenville or the Port au Port area, when the individual in question who had left his employ to go to Afghanistan, had a full-time job only to find out - in fact, I believe he had to quit his job before he went, only to find out he was not eligible to have his job kept on hold for him until he got back.

I guess we can think of a lot of things that is honourable to do, but to agree to give up your time to go do your duty as part of the Canadian Armed Forces is one of the most honourable we can think of, and to suggest that because you might do so, you could possibly be comprising your future employment when you do return and the welfare and wellbeing of your family, I think that just goes beyond, to have such a situation that might exist. I think it is obvious. It is not a case of it should not be done. It is a case that it just was not on the books. It is right and proper, I do believe, for the government to put it on the books.

So, in those circumstances - this does not apply to anybody who just wants some time off from their job and is going to rush off and say I am going off with the reserves. This deals with a situation where a person is being deployed or imminent deployment. They are getting training for imminent deployment to places where they are required. I would think it is not that individual who has made the decision that I want to go. It is usually someone who is higher in command which comes to the reservist and says: We would like to have you help us out in such and such a deployment, or such and such a situation. I think the person may say yes, but I would suspect the request to get engaged and to go to do your duty in the first place is driven by someone other than the person themselves. So, it is not self motivated. This is doing an honourable thing, and to have to face a possibility of coming back and not have your job there, to me it is just horrendous to think that such a thing might exist. We, in this country, have made great strides so far in terms of people who find themselves in certain situations where they need to have their jobs protected and kept in abeyance until they get back.

For example, maternity leave; years ago you could not get such a thing as maternity leave but, thank God, we were sensible enough as a nation and as a country to acknowledge that there are circumstances when people have to leave the workforce to go care for their children. That was acknowledged in many of our federal laws and our provincial laws. That is along the same ilk as this one right here, I would suggest. It is the same tenor. It is something that needs to be done, has to be done from time to time, and when it is required the last thing an individual who finds him or herself in that situation needs is to be hamstrung by non-existent laws, I should say, whereby your employment might be compromised and it has long range impacts.

So, I do not think any more needs to be said. The situation was found to exist. It was brought to the attention of government and I think government quite rightly has reacted by bringing in Bill 1, and we will see that that is corrected on a go-forward basis. We will certainly, Mr. Speaker, be speaking in favour and support of and voting for this Bill 1.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne): The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill1, An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act To Provide For Leave For Reservists.

Mr. Speaker, as was already alluded to, indeed, in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Canada, one of the greatest contributions you could make to the country is to take military duty. This government outlined in October when we went to the polls - did, in our blueprint, make a commitment to introduce legislation to look at the Canadian Forces, reservists in the Province, and ensure that they had protection; that they did not go off as reservists and serve, domestically or overseas, that, indeed, the one worry they would not have was that when they returned they would have their employment to go back to. That is very important, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, all of those, both women and men, who serve in uniform have their jobs and livelihoods in jeopardy when risking their lives for the service of our country. That is just one more worry they do not need. They need to know they have security for their families when they return, and this amendment proposes to do that.

Many provinces across Canada, as well, have adopted comparable protection for reservists. We, in proposing this legislation, no doubt, are keeping in trend with a national wide movement that is taking place in this area. It also looks to strike a balance between employer and employees' rights and responsibilities while fully, as I say, supporting the national interest.

There is a provision here in regards to employers in the amendment, in regards to circumstances where leave may not be granted, some certain circumstances where they can make representation to the director for reasons for that.

The legislation as well, the amendment, looks at to be flexible to cover the full period of service. As said by the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment when he introduced it, to look at the total period for the time served, looking at treatment, recovery, rehabilitation, and to address any potential health issues that result from deployment. That is important, too. It is not just the initial stage, it is the total stage which is important in this amendment as well.

As well, when the actual leave ends of the reservist, the employer must accept back the employee on the terms and conditions that are not less beneficial that existed before the leave began. So, basically, the position they leave to provide service to the country is the same position that they return back to.

As well, should employers be of the view that granting this reservist leave will cause undue hardship to the employer, as I mentioned, they may apply to the Director of Labour Standards for an exemption. So, there is protection there on both sides. That is why we say there is a balance between both, between the employee and the employer, in terms of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, government recognizes the willingness of employers in the Province to support their employees in serving their country. Many employers, as well, already have such programs in place to support reservist employees. No doubt, it is this government's responsibility to ensure that the same minimum standards exist in all provincial workplaces.

Mr. Speaker, this Province and this country have made a tremendous contribution over the years. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have served pre-Confederation, post-Confederation, in conflicts around the world, in World War I, World War II, the Korean Conflict, a long-standing tradition in serving with the United Nations in peacekeeping as well as conflict. We have seen that none too real than over the past number of years resulting from 9-11 and the happenings that are going on around the world, and the role Canadians are playing in both peacekeeping and in conflicts around the world.

We should never forget that: the tremendous role that these men and women play, and the contribution that is made by the families, by the loved ones who are left at home. It is not only those individuals but it is certainly the families, and the role they play for Newfoundland and Labrador and for Canada as a whole.

The amendment, Mr. Speaker, as well, supports this government's commitment to support the strong tradition of military service in this Province, as I have said, and no doubt it will continue.

I guess, finally, to conclude, I would like to just reiterate what I said in regard to this being a balance between the employer and the employee in making sure that our reservists do have the protection and do have the security that, when they are called for deployment, they have that peace of mind that investments they have made in, I guess, their non-military lives in terms of their profession, when they return after the deployment, they can indeed return to that at the same level they had left, and continue on to support their families and play the active role that they had played before they left.

Mr. Speaker, this, no doubt, as well, will help facilitate reservists' return to their work environment and restoration back into civilian life, and no doubt will help tremendously in terms of the transition from active duty to civilian life. As I mentioned earlier, it removes that daily worry, when they are on deployment, of returning to civilian life when it is finished.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I will conclude my commentary and certainly hope that all members will consider this seriously and certainly support this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for allowing me to go ahead of her.

I am very happy to stand and to speak to this amendment to the Labour Standards Act with regard to leave for reservists. I am particularly pleased that the amendment is located in the Labour Standards Act. I know that there was some discussion inside of government where exactly to put this piece of legislation, but I think it is very right and proper that it is in labour standards. One, because it recognizes the validity of the work that is done by the reservists, and that it is work and it is part of our labour and it is something that does need to be protected under the Labour Standards Act - I think that is very, very important – and, two, because it does deal with the relationship between a worker and the employer.

I think that dictates that the amendment goes into this piece of legislation and not elsewhere, or stand on its own, because I do not think it should be something that would stand on its own. The work that the reservists are doing is exactly that, as I have said. It is work, it is a very particular work, and it is a very important work. It is work that not everybody gets the opportunity to do, and that is work to serve their country. Anything that we can do to show how important that is, we should do it. I am very pleased about that.

I think it has been pointed out already, but I will say it again, that we join a few other provinces which have done this. Nova Scotia did it in 2006. In Nova Scotia, in actual fact, it did not come from government; it came from a private member's bill, an NDP private member's bill. It was passed, with amendments to that bill, in November 2006. Other provinces have passed similar legislation, both in 2007 and 2008, and I guess the importance of passing this legislation in different provinces right now is because of the fact that we do have numbers of people now being called into service to represent our country outside of Canada. So we are in a new moment, a moment that we are not always in, and I guess that is dictating this urgency to have this legislation put in place. Knowing that we are going to have more than seventy people from this Province go to Afghanistan in February 2009 dictates an urgency to us that we now have a bill in front of us that

will make sure those reservists get some protection with regard to the jobs that they will be leaving and absolutely hope to go back to. With this legislation we are assuring that they will have those jobs to go back to.

I know that government did extensive consultation on putting this piece of legislation together, and I compliment the government on that, and the minister. I know that both employers and labour representatives have given their agreement to this piece of legislation, and I am quite happy about that.

There is one thing that I would like to put forward, and it is something that could become a regulation with regard to the amendment, and that is a concern with regard to any health care plans that workers may be benefiting from in their workplace.

Now, I do know that there are some current employers who are very co-operative with regard to reservists, and there are some current employers, larger employers in the Province, who do have good health care plans - some of them are in the public sector - and they do continue the health care plan of the employee. I am assuming that would mean if the employee has family attached to the health care plan, the health care plan continues as is, but I do have a concern that the amendment does not deal with that.

Now, I know that there are some workplaces which are small and it could be a burden on them to continue the health care plan, but I have a concern with regard to the families of the reservists who will no longer get health care benefits that they were used to. I am disappointed it is not in the legislation.

I do know that there was a sample corporate military leave policy that was recommended by the Canadian Forces Liaison Council, and in that they certainly supported the notion of the health care plan continuing for reservists and their families, for the families in particular, because in most cases the reservists were going to be covered but not the families.

It is hard to know, standing here - I was not involved in discussions with the minister over this - but one possible scenario is that the government could say that families of reservists, while they are in service, would come in under the Provincial Prescription Drug Program. That could be one thing that the government could consider. Another thing the government could consider is that with small companies who have health care plans, maybe government could subsidize the health care plans while the reservists are in service.

It is an issue that I think the government does need to look at. With regard to the current reservists who will be going away in 2009, government does have some time to come up with something that they could implement to deal with the concern with regard to a health care plan for the families.

I do not think that families themselves should be penalized because one of the major caregivers is in service, and neither should the reservist be penalized in terms of the stress that is on a reservist in wanting to know that their family is being taken care of.

I respectfully submit this notion of the health care issue to the minister. As I said, this is something that could be done through regulation. It is not necessarily something that would have to be in the amendment. I do not know if this was discussed. I would like to know from the minister, actually, before we pass this amendment, whether or not this issue was discussed both with employers as well as with the labour movement, representatives from labour. I would also like to know if it was discussed with the CFLC as well, because it is something that they were concerned about.

Having said that, obviously, I will be supporting this amendment but I am hoping that my concern will not be something that will just be dropped; it will be something that we can look at into the future.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to the amendment.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand for a few moments today and support Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act To Provide For Leave For Reservists.

I want to take an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to say, in supporting this piece of legislation today, as Government House Leader, and on behalf of the Premier as leader of the government, that when governments bring in a Throne Speech and start off a new session of Parliament, a new session of the Legislature, we have to contemplate our legislative agenda and we have to give some order of importance to how we bring that legislation before the Assembly to be dealt with.

I want it to be clearly understood, Mr. Speaker, that this government, while we made it a part of our blueprint during the election back in October that we would move to fix an anomaly that was occurring in our society in terms of how reservists were treated once they came back from their duty to their country, how they were treated in terms of their job opportunities - we made a commitment about that during the election campaign - but we then, having been re-elected in October, had to contemplate how we would fit that into our legislative agenda.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, the fact that this is on the Order Paper since the House session began in March, as Bill 1, reflects how this government feels about those reservists who voluntarily make it their business to offer their services to their country. Mr. Speaker, we as a government and the Premier as the Leader of the government believe that it was of the utmost importance that those of our citizens who volunteer – because remember that is what they do. They are not drafted, it is not by conscription, it is by them volunteering, that they volunteer to offer their services to their country in whatever role that might be. It might be Afghanistan which is obviously an active war zone, it might be a peacekeeping mission in some other part of the world, but they offer their services on behalf of all of us to their fellow citizens and to mankind, I guess, as a whole.

We wanted to recognize that fact as a government, that we understand and that we have a great appreciation for those people who are so unselfish as to do that voluntarily for the good of all of us. They do a great tribute –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: They stand, Mr. Speaker, head and shoulders above all of us when they volunteer to do that of their own accord and of their own volition. Many of us, Mr. Speaker, in this House have come to have great respect for the military in Canada. Our military is a military that answers to civilian authority. It is not a military that makes decisions of its own accord and tells the government of the day what to do. Our military is the military that answers to civilian authority and reacts and responds to the direction from the elected leaders of our country.

Many of us, in our roles as members of this House, have come to understand and know and appreciate the cadet movement, for example, in our own constituencies. I remember when I represented Lewisporte, the air cadets, the Dambusters, a fantastic cadet organization in Lewisporte, and the sea cadets Grenfell Corp in Baie Verte in my own district at the moment, a great organization.

I mention it, Mr. Speaker, because many of the reservists come to being reservists or they go on to the military by being part of the cadet movement. General Hillier himself, I did not realize it, but when I was in Lewisporte, when we welcomed General Hillier back to his roots - because remember General Hillier is from Campbellton, a small community next door to Lewisporte. When we had a public function to welcome him back to his roots, he began his military career as part of the Dambusters in Lewisporte, a cadet organization, and he went on, not only to a distinguished military career, but to be the leader of all of the military forces in Canada from a little -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: - one might say, Mr. Speaker, a little rock hole in a rock hole in the North Atlantic, Campbellton in Notre Dame Bay. The man who went on to lead the military organization in Canada, not only to lead the military organization in Canada but to make a tremendous contribution to our partners in NATO, to NORAD, to all of the other military organizations that Canada is part of and in which we contribute to the global community.

Mr. Speaker, the government is really proud and pleased that we can introduce this piece of progressive legislation. I believe, in the final analysis, while those volunteers go and do their duty and they want to do their duty, they want to make things better in pretty hot spots all over the world, a society must be judged by the way we treat those volunteers who do that on our behalf. Sure, we can allow them to go off to serve their country and they can come back, as did one of our citizens on the West Coast in Stephenville, I believe it was, and find that he, in this case - or it could be a she, but he in this case - no longer has a job. Well, that is not good enough, Mr. Speaker, for those who volunteer to serve our country in the military service.

This bill will correct that. This will go a long way to making sure that the people who volunteer through the reservist to make a contribution to Canada and to Canada's contribution overseas in the military service, wherever it might be, as I said, whether it would be in peacekeeping or whether it be an active war zone like in Afghanistan, no matter where it is, we can stand a little prouder and a little taller in this Province today because we are making it right. We are making it happen. We are making it in law.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: As we should. We should make it the law of the land that those people will have a job to return to, that those people will have benefits to return to when they have gone through the unselfish act of serving their country.

Mr. Speaker, this bill applies to the private sector, but obviously the minister has given indication that the Crown is bound by this and not by the bill itself, because we are bound in another way. So, we treat our employees and employees who are employed by agencies of the government in a similar fashion.

So, this is a great piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that we promised to bring forward when we went to the people to ask for a renewed mandate a few months ago. It is a piece of legislation that we were quite pleased and proud to place at the head of our legislative agenda. We had a lot of bills. Out of fifty-odd pieces of legislation that this House will consider in this session, we had a lot of pieces of legislation that are important to a lot of people and to a lot of organizations in our Province but we, as a government, firmly believe that no piece of legislation that we will bring in during this session is any more important and should be any more prominent than this. That is why, Mr. Speaker, this is Bill 1, and that is why this government is pleased to introduce it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly wanted to contribute to debate that is ongoing today with regard to Bill 1. I did not get to hear all of my colleague's contributions to this bill because I had to step outside for a media scrum.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile has already indicated that we are definitely in support of this bill. I want to commend the minister who has introduced it in the House of Assembly because I think he has certainly done the appropriate thing in responding to the issue that was a very public issue in the Province and in the media as it centred around reservists and the opportunity to have leave to be able to contribute to the Canadian Armed Forces. I think he has done the appropriate thing in introducing it in the House of Assembly and making it into law so that we are able to join the other provinces in Canada that have done and produced similar legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we are definitely supportive of the bill simply because we are supportive of the work that is being done by the Canadian military and by those people who served our country, both abroad and in Canada. We see that this is being introduced at a time when there is such tremendous respect for the military and for the work they are doing around the world, that people are wanting to be able to give their support, to be able to contribute to that cause and be on the frontlines, and that is what these reservists have been trained to do. Now they want an opportunity to be able to give something back. I think it is only appropriate that proper notice be given to their employers when this is being done. I understand this bill certainly makes recommendations with regard to that, and the requirements that would have to be honoured in that process of leave. I think that is only respectable to the employer that they work for, and they can work out an arrangement that is acceptable by both.

I also understand there is no firm legislation that does not allow for exemption, because this does. It allows for the employer to able to look at the skills and abilities of that employee and what they contribute to their company and if there is appropriate rationale provided, then, again, that falls within the order of the legislation as well.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this bill on many fronts. First of all, I want to say I have a sister who is a part of the Canadian military and have been serving with them for - I think it is eighteen years now, or seventeen years. I might be able to be corrected on that. She, too, has served in a number of countries around the world. She has not served in Afghanistan. I think her last mission was in Egypt, in which she served for six months. I certainly gather from her a tremendous understanding of the kind of work that is being done within the Canadian Armed Forces, and the contributions that they make. I am very proud of their work on many fronts, simply because I have certain personal knowledge based on the contributions that are being made by a family member.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend the reservists who raised this issue in a public way, because while they were doing it they may not have thought that it would have the significant impact that it is having today. What it is doing, in essence, is paving the way for many people who volunteer as reservists within our Province and giving them the opportunity that before could only be afforded with co-operation from employers. Now it is being able to be afforded under legislation and law that will be governed through the Labour Standards Act.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to take an opportunity - because this is the first time, I think, we have debated any bill around the military in the Province since General Rick Hillier has tabled his resignation. I certainly would like to take the opportunity to commend him for the tremendous service that he has given. He has certainly been Canada's General, as we all know, but he has been a solid, committed soldier to this country. I do not think that could ever be overlooked. The fact that he is a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, obviously, makes it a sense of tremendous pride for all of us in this Province. I have had the opportunity to meet General Hillier on a couple of occasions actually, but in the past year I met him when he was in Newfoundland and Labrador at the Federation of Municipalities and gave a very inspiring speech to thousands of people who were in that room that day, people I am sure who had connections of sons, daughters, nieces, nephews, uncles and aunts who were in the military, and certainly were there, Mr. Speaker, to hear the inspiring words that he spoke and the great enthusiasm that he showed for the military in this country and for the work that they were doing.

I also had an opportunity to meet him when I was in Ottawa. As you know we did a showcase this year of Canada's North in which we had communities from all across the Arctic - Labrador was one of them - that talked about building stronger partnerships and bridges. General Rick Hillier was one of our keynote speakers at that conference and talked about northern sovereignty and what was being done in the Arctic in the military and the kind of operations and missions that they were performing. As well, he talked about the work that is being done right across the country in northern regions in terms of search and rescue operations and things like this that are being provided by the military.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt he has inspired many young recruits to join the Canadian Military, inspired them to sign up and to be a part of a great cause in this country, but I am sure he has also motivated many of those who are members of the military, motivated them in their work and in their calling, and certainly has given the Canadian Armed Forces in this country a status and a profile like we have not seen before. I think because of that he has gained tremendous respect from Canadians right from coast to coast, and I think that respect not only comes from within the military operation but from all citizens in the country.

One of the things that I saw that was very evident is the infusion of more federal money within the military because of the profile and the stature that he has given it. We have seen the Canadian government investing more in the men and women who are in uniform across the country, investing into the capital infrastructure that is required for them to be able to do their job and to do it effectively.

Mr. Speaker, I think in Newfoundland and Labrador we have had opportunity to be very proud of many tremendous Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have served not only our Province but our country and this is certainly another one. If I was to make a recommendation - the highest order I think that we give out in Newfoundland and Labrador today is the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador and maybe on recommendation through the House of Assembly General Rick Hillier could be awarded the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador to show our appreciation and certainly the amount of respect that we have for him in this Province for the kind of work that he has done in the Canadian Military.

Mr. Speaker, with those few words I just want to say that I certainly support the legislation under the Labour Standards Act to provide for the leave of reservists. I feel that the Act is very thorough, that the minister has, no doubt, provided for the leniency for leave, the process to be used, the exemption policies which can be used and the employee protections that were required.

We certainly have no objection to any of the comments or any of the legislation that has been prepared here under Bill 1 and we will be voting to support it today.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment speaks now he will close debate.

The Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is my pleasure to close debate on Bill 1.

I do want to thank the members opposite for their input and for their support of this bill. As was, I think, quite rightly pointed out by the Member for Ferryland, this is one less worry that the members of the reservists will now have to carry with them as they go to serve our country, be it overseas or be it in domestic service. As has been pointed out eloquently by other members here these reservists do provide valuable service. We owe them our thanks, our support, and whatever we can do to assist them in being able to carry out their missions without having to worry about their return home, I believe it is right for us to do that.

I also want to address, as best I can, the concern that was brought forward by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. It is my understanding that when reservists are classified, for lack of a better word, as Class C they are basically a regular member of the forces then or are entitled to the benefits of a regular member of the forces, and would be eligible for any of the medical or other benefits that a member of the forces gets, as would their family. The minute that they leave the employment of an employer and become a member of the reservists, who has been called forward and entitled to this leave, the benefits that would be available to a regular member of the Canadian Forces would be available to the member who is a reservist, due to the Class C designation that they would receive.

As well, Mr. Speaker, I do want to mention that, as has been noted as well, there are six provinces that have brought in similar legislation. They are all different in their own ways but there are six provinces that have brought this in. I believe it was last Friday, if memory serves me correctly, the federal government actually brought their bill into effect. It was given Royal Assent last Friday. We have six provinces and the federal government who have brought in legislation similar to this.

I can tell you that I believe it was January month I was at some meetings of labour ministers, and this topic is being discussed right across the country, and I suspect you will see other provinces and territories bring in similar legislation in the very near future.

As was mentioned by my hon. colleague, the Government House Leader, the symbolism of this being Bill 1 should not be lost upon members of the House of Assembly. It was a deliberate decision by the government to make this Bill 1 in this session of the House of Assembly, and from our perspective this is one small act that we believe as a government we can do to show our support and our appreciation for the responsibilities and the job that reservists have to do.

I would also like to recognize, Mr. Speaker, before I sit down, the input that was provided to government by the Canadian Forces Liaison Council. It was no small amount of effort, I can tell you. There were a number of meetings. I sat in, in particular, on one. The Canadian Forces Liaison Council certainly had done a fair bit of homework, presented to government a number of points that needed consideration, that we needed to think about, and the fact that we have a bill here today that is being supported by all sides of the House is due in no small part to the effort that was made by the Canadian Forces Liaison Council. I do want to recognize and thank them for the amount of effort and the amount of energy that they put into making sure that we had a bill that was properly before the House.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will close my remarks and move second reading of Bill 1.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act To Provide For Leave For Reservists, 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 Labour Standards Act To Provide For Leave For Reservists. (Bill 1)

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

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, by leave.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, with leave, and I understand there is leave –

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. RIDEOUT: I would move that the House now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 1.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 1, 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.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to refer Bill 1 for consideration by the House in Committee of the Whole.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act To Provide For Leave For Reservists.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act To Provide For Leave For Reservists." (Bill 1)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act To Provide For Leave For Reservists.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: 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 in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South, and Deputy Speaker.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 1 carried without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act To Provide For Leave For Reservists, carried without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bill be read a third time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, by leave.

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

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act To Provide For Leave For Reservists, now be read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 1 be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion, that Bill 1 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 Labour Standards Act To Provide For Leave For Reservists. (Bill 1)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act To Provide For Leave For Reservists," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 1)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank members for their co-operation in moving this bill through all three stages today.

For the benefit of those people in the gallery, the bill is now finished in the House and it is passed on to His Honour for Royal Assent, which will happen some time soon, and it will become law, but the House is now finished with the bill and it is passed.

I would like now to call Order 4, second reading of Bill 11, An Act Respecting Embalmers And Funeral Directors.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 11, An Act Respecting Embalmers And Funeral Directors, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Embalmers And Funeral Directors." (Bill 11)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to get up here in the House this afternoon in regard to this bill, in regard to the funeral directors and embalmers act.

It is another piece of work that has been happening - as a matter of fact we had a couple go through already in this session of the House - in regard to the regulation and the regulations pertaining to self-regulating occupations.

Again, the funeral directors and embalmers certainly have been consulted in this process. As the minister responsible, I feel that these and certain professions within our societies within our Province should be self-regulating. They should have that autonomy but also, in keeping with that, government has a responsibility to the people to protect the public in that process.

This piece of legislation certainly encompasses all the principles of the White Paper and all the regulations pertaining to the White Paper when it was first tabled.

With the introduction of this Act, the board group will now change from a Category 3 identity which signifies that they report to the minister to a self-regulating occupation, that they will be governed by the regulations pertained in the piece of legislation.

Again, the public interest is protected under the legislation through set criteria, which will require the funeral directors and embalmers board to file such things as annual reports, establish a conduct and complaints committee and appoint lay people, non-professional people, to the board in the public interest. As a matter of fact, those particular people in regards to the disciplinary side will be appointed by the minister responsible.

Again, the department has consulted with the industry through the board and they are very supportive of the Act and they are ready, really, to become self-regulatory and I guess control their own destiny to a certain degree. This is pertaining to all the other self-regulating occupations in the Province and is very similar to governing structures and similar disciplinary processes in place for those self-regulating occupations. Also, in respect to the other provinces of Canada, they also have similar legislation governing the self-regulatory occupations.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is a big piece for the House of Assembly in regards to the piece of legislation. I welcome any comments by my colleagues across the floor. Again, the industry itself has been consulted in regards to the piece of legislation. They welcome the piece of legislation and see it as a positive move by government to make them self-regulatory in regards to their occupation.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit and I welcome any remarks from my colleagues across the floor.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to have a few words with respect to Bill 11. I guess this is an ongoing pursuit by government; it is not only this government but preceding governments and preceding administrations. We have a lot of different professionals, groups, in this Province that over the years developed a body of regulations amongst themselves and administrative rules and so on and they got themselves together, but a lot of times they were not covered by a particular law or piece of legislation which said what you could or could not do. That had to change, of course, because a lot of these groups, if you are dealing with the public, the government has an obligation and a responsibility to see that the public interest is preserved.

Albeit a group may be self regulating, but the question becomes - it is like the fox in the hen house. It is fine to say that you can regulate yourself but you still must regulate yourself in accordance with what is in the best interest to the public. Who should oversee these different groups that deal with the public, whether it be consumers, whether it be individuals and so on, to ensure that there is a proper level administrative procedure and accounting procedures and responsibilities in place to ensure that the public get treated properly.

Just a few examples of course: In the last five, six or seven years in this House here we did a similar type thing for the psychologists in the Province. We have done it for optometrists, we have done it for chiropractors, pharmacists, we have massage therapists, we have had accountants and we have had lawyers. Some of these have been before the House for eons, going back years and years. I notice, for example, not only do you bring in the basic law but circumstances change from time to time, which require you to go back, look at what you did originally and change it again to recognize that there are new social circumstances or economic circumstances that come to light that require amendments and changes from time to time.

For example, I do believe the Government House Leader gave notice today of first reading on a law society bill which we are going to deal with in due course here in the House. That is an example of a self regulating body that has had a law in existence for many, many years, but time has required that there be changes made, for example, in the disciplinary committees and report mechanisms, the educational committees, the law society and so on. Changes were required so that is why we are seeing that particular one, the law society, being amended here.

That is what we have here, basically. We have had laws around embalmers and funeral directors before, different hodgepodge pieces of laws in some cases, and they have had a body of regulations that they have adopted themselves as a board. I do believe government, in fact, appoints the directors to the funeral directors and embalmers board of the Province. Certain ones are selected from within that group but government does have the right to appoint, as I recall. Then, they can get together and decide what is right and proper by them as a group.

What we have here now, we are encoding, I guess is a better word, we are encoding a lot of stuff that they had and they operated under, under a law, so that anyone, for example, who is a member of that group - you may be a embalmer, you may be a director, but more importantly, I would suggest, not only that the people involved in the business of embalming and funeral directing know what their requirements are, but anybody who deals with these people know now if they want to find out what laws govern these bodies.

I don't know if any other members of the House have had the misfortune or fortune, whichever way you look at it I guess, to deal with this situation where I have personally had a lot of constituents who, not so much in the recent past but in the past, ran into problems with funeral homes. They wanted to know: What are my rights? Who do I go to? Who do I make a complaint to? What can I do?

I will just refresh some of the members' minds of a very good example that happened in this Province, where the government had to step in and help the consumers who were, to put it bluntly, ripped off by someone in that industry. That is none other than in my own hometown of Port aux Basques where we had a funeral home, a person who ran a licensed establishment who went out and got involved in the prearranged funerals, took hundreds of thousands of dollars, literally hundreds of thousands of dollars – I think the figure used in court was in excess of half a million dollars that went missing.

Now, these were, in most cases, senior people, elderly people who, some of them, took their last dollar and said they wanted to be properly buried and invested it in prepaid funerals, only to have that particular individual – and I am not saying anything defamatory or slanderous here about him, because he was found guilty of it; and he walked away with it. The figure being used was over half a million dollars.

Now, the government at that time, of course, which was the former administration, had to step in and say, first and foremost, what do we do to help the consumer here who has been hurt. As I say, many of these people were seniors. They had lost thousands of dollars and they didn't, quite frankly, have the money to put back.

What government did is similar to the government standing up when things need to be done properly. It is like the reservist bill we had today. Government stepped in, it needed to be done, it made common sense, and the government said, in future it will be done. That is what you had there. The government of the day stood up and said we know you seniors shouldn't have to bear the stress. You are missing $10,000 out of y our pocket not due to any fault of your own. Someone committed a criminal offence and ran off with your money. The government of the day stepped in and said we will reimburse you. Anybody who had purchased a prearranged funeral from that particular individual, we will honour it and we will see that it is honoured. We won't leave you stuck.

That was quite a few you people. You can imagine, now! You had well in excess of a half a million dollars that has walked out the door. What the government did at that day was they legislated. So that government itself didn't have to bear the brunt of it, they put a system in place whereby all the funeral directors and embalmers and funeral operators in the Province had to pay a percentage in future, from that time on, into a fund. The government picked up the tab up front to give the people the stress relief that they needed, and the protection that they needed, but they said to that group: Over time you will pay for it back, because one of your own made off with the money.

They did not say that Joe Blow in Greenspond, for example, was going to pay a percentage of it. They said that whatever funeral directors collected on a go-forward basis, a percentage would be put into a pot to repay that money that had been borrowed.

That is a case where, albeit the general public deal with people, they sometimes get taken advantage of because there are no rules, or the rules are not firm enough or strict enough to figure out what the obligations of those people might be.

This is a case again where we are giving the authority to these people in the funeral industry to regulate themselves. Of course, there are reporting mechanisms here, as the minister said. You just do not give them their act and say, run off and do what you willy-nilly wish. There are reporting requirements. So, somewhere in the future, based upon this piece of legislation, this group of people will have to report back to the House and it will be here, then, public knowledge, every year on a go-forward basis, whereby these people, anybody in the public domain who wants to check out and see what this group of people have done, there will be an opportunity to be able to see that.

I am particularly pleased to see this one hit the floor here and be passed, and we will certainly be voting in favour of it and it will be passed, because a lot of these self-regulating groups, it is a different situation. For example, if you go in and see a lawyer, and you have a problem with the lawyer or the services that he rendered, or a chiropractor, you might not mind asking pointed questions and so on, what you can or cannot do. It is a different ball game than when you are dealing with a funeral home director. You are usually dealing with a very sensitive type situation, at sensitive times, and a lot of times people, because of the particular circumstances, might not ask the question; but here it is now, it will be public knowledge, and anyone can go in and see it themselves. It will be posted on the Internet, along with every other law, so if there is ever a concern as to what that particular group is doing, there will be no problem with accessing and seeing what is wrong with it, or what is good about it as well.

Just for a second on the issue of the pre-arranged funeral, again, I guess there is a continuing saga with that because the local newspaper in that area in Port aux Basques, The Gulf News - I believe that incident happened maybe nine years ago now, eight or nine years. The individual in question went to court. There was a fine imposed, and there was what they call a restitution order. The individual in question, who departed under the cover of darkness – actually, and I mean literally under the cover of darkness - when this happened, packed up a U-Haul and left town under the cover of darkness before the information became public, came back later and dealt with the issue in the court, as he was required, got his fine, got his restitution order, and to this day this Province is trying to collect that $500,000 back from that individual. It still is a sore point with a lot of people out there, because apparently there has not been a penny paid to date, and the newspaper out there keeps reporting and saying: Where is the money? Where is the money? Where is the money?

I know the former Administration tried to get it; but, of course, it has been five or six years now. I think every now and then The Gulf News checks with the office of the Minister of Justice and the Sheriff's Office and tries to find out what is the status on this. That was probably the most sore point, raw-boned, upsetting episode that ever happened out there when it came to seniors. To this day, people want to see their justice done. It just rankles them, that this person took their money and walked off with it and there has been no restitution yet, and now they live out in Alberta, apparently.

We would certainly, and I would certainly, on behalf of all of those constituents and their families who, over the last number of years, have approached me again and said: What is the score on this?, that government would again use any and all resources that they have to see that judgement is collected. We do have a Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgements Act. I understand that Justice is trying their best. I understand that the Sherriff's Office has all of the necessary paperwork done; but, again, we have not been able to nab the funds yet and get them back into the coffers of this Province.

The people are fine; they do not need it back because they were looked after by the Province. In any event, it is just a matter of justice, I think. People feel that this person did something wrong to them. It was a very sensitive issue, what they did, and it caused a lot of grief and aggravation for those people. So, if the government could follow up on that particular issue it would be great.

We will, as I say, be speaking in favour of this piece of legislation. It is good to see them regulated. I have spoken to - in fact, I distributed a copy, once I got a copy of the bill, to some persons I know in the industry today, just to ask if they had any comments or suggestions about it, and what they thought of it. The feedback that I got was certainly that this needs to be done. It is a great move. It is the same as every other industry in the Province. We are going to be regulated and we are going to have a reporting mechanism. If we do something wrong, there are ways to complain about us, and so on. So there is going to be more openness, transparency and accountability, shall we say, when it comes to this particular industry.

I do believe the Member for Port de Grave also consulted, because this bill usually would fall under his area of critique, and I do believe that he has consulted with the member in his particular area involved in the industry and he might have some specific questions of the minister. I understand he is going to elaborate upon those specific details, realizing that it usually comes in Committee stage, but in fairness to the minister he would like to raise the issues now in second reading so it gives the minister an opportunity to get the answers, if answers are required, and then when we get to Committee stage that should expedite things more quickly.

Thank you.

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

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

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this bill, An Act Respecting Embalmers And Funeral Directors. I think it is a very important piece of legislation.

Any group in our society in particular who is dealing with people, the lives of people, a service to people, their care, and especially a group like this who deals with people at one of the most fragile times in their lives, and that is when they are dealing with the death of a loved one, any group of this nature definitely should have regulations in place. I think government has a responsibility to give leadership with regard to making sure that this profession is regulated.

I know, from speaking to members of the profession, that they welcome having regulations put in place and becoming like other professionals, a group that will self-regulate under a piece of legislation.

I think it is very important. It professionalizes the work that is done by embalmers and funeral directors. As I have indicated, I think that any service that is involved with people in their lives and in the care of who they are is a service that does need government there with them regulating for the public good and in the name of people.

I am pleased with this piece of legislation, and have gone through it. It certainly seems to be comprehensive and covering everything that is needed to give the embalmers and funeral directors what they need to regulate themselves, to regulate themselves under this legislation, being accountable to this legislation, and being given a process that is a transparent process and that allows for accountability in a public way.

I have spoken to the minister. I have one little practical thing that I would like to point out, that the minister and I have discussed. It has to do with the connection between section 8.(1) (f) and section 15, and it is pretty important.

Section 8.(1)(f) talks about a code of ethics which may include a definition of professional misconduct and conduct unbecoming for the purposes of sections 15 to 32. It may include provisions respecting conflict of interest and it may include rules respecting methods of advertising.

My question has to do with the use of the word may, because under section 8.(1)(f)(i) where it says it may include the definition of professional misconduct and conduct unbecoming for the purposes of sections 15 to 32.

I went over to sections 15 to 32, and over there the whole of that is talking about how to deal with complaints; the setting up of a complaints and disciplinary panel, the setting up of a complaints authorization panel, and an adjudication tribunal to deal with complaints.

When I go to section 15, and look at section 15(c), it defines conduct deserving of sanction, and the conduct deserving of sanction includes professional misconduct. It includes conduct unbecoming a licensed funeral director or an embalmer. It covers professional incompetence, but particularly it covers professional misconduct. So I go back to section 8.(1)(f)(i) and I see that the code of ethics may include a definition of professional misconduct.

It seems to me that the legislation absolutely requires that there be a definition of professional misconduct, because if we do not have a definition of professional misconduct than all the different panels that are going to be set up to deal with complaints are not going to have a definition to go by and then you are going to get into individual interpretations of what is the misconduct. I think that we actually need in the code of ethics the definition of professional misconduct and conduct unbecoming for the purposes of those sections, because as we all know, the issue around conduct - if you have a hundred people in a room and try to get a definition of a - if a certain act was a good act or not, you might get a hundred different opinions on whether or not a certain act is okay. We all have different levels of - even our own personal ethics, we come out of different cultures, different backgrounds. Some things are acceptable and others not acceptable to somebody else. I would suggest that would be the same for a profession as well.

I think we have to be sure that the embalmers and funeral directors set for themselves an agreement in their code of ethics, with regard to what would constitute professional misconduct and unbecoming conduct for embalmers and funeral directors so that if ever there is a complaint, the panels that are in place - the complaints panel, the complaints and disciplinary panel and the complaints authorization panel and the adjudication tribunal - that they have some very clear guidelines which are going to help them decide whether or not a compliant is a valid complaint or not.

So, I have pointed this out to the minister. I could be wrong on this, but I think he and I see the reason here for questioning the word, may. By saying code of ethics which may include, is no stronger than saying a code ethics which includes. If you say a code of ethics which includes, it does not mean there cannot be other things in it. It would mean that those three things have to be in it. I think these three things, because of the reasons I have given, really do need to be in it.

I think the minister is probably checking on that and will speak to that when he gets up to close the debate; having said that, I do not need to go on any further. I think it is a good piece of legislation. I am glad that we are passing it. I will be voting for it, and I hope that this change will be made so that there will be no doubt that a code of ethics, when it is put in place, has a very clear definition that then can be dealt with under the sections dealing with complaints procedure.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a privilege to get up and make a couple of comments that were expressed to me with regards to Bill 11, An Act Respecting Embalmers and Funeral Directors.

Just for the information of the minister, and I am sure he can clarify it the end and maybe it does not need all that much clarification. With regards to section 11.(3), about how representatives of the board may enter without notice the premises of an embalmer or funeral director at all reasonable times to make all necessary inspections.

The only concern that was expressed to me probably would be - I am not saying that they cannot proceed, but if for instance, the funeral director or the embalmer, both of them could be in another town on that given day with another funeral and wondering, would it be appropriate that they be given advance time. At least they could be there when the inspection went ahead. Now if there is some major crisis taking place and you have to go there, I am sure there are ways by - probably going through the justice system or to the RNC or the RCMP or something like that. The way I look at it, those people are professionals and probably should be treated that way. I am not saying there should be a time frame given to them but at least the courtesy if they are tied up with another funeral in another town or what have you.

The other one was under the

The way I look at it, those people are professionals and probably should be treated that way. I am not saying there should be a timeframe given them, but at least the courtesy, if they are tied up with another funeral in another town or what have you.

The other one was under section 7, the prosecution part of it. The only thing I was wondering there: Is there a Statute of Limitations, how far that can go back? Say, for instance, if something happened in 2002 or 2003, is that covered? Is there a time limit or is a go-forward basis on something that should be looked at under the prosecution end of it. I guess if you had to go back like the embalmers - I think they get their licence every year. If something happened in 2005, for whatever reason he lost the licence he had that year or he has his licence in 2008, would that cover off on that?

Those are the only couple of comments I had, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure the minister will clarify them in his closing remarks.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Minister of Government Services speaks now, he will close the debate on Bill 11, An Act Respecting Embalmers And Funeral Directors.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I will not have all the answers today, but certainly I will go back to my department and come back with verification and advice in the committee stage.

A couple of items I can address are: Yes, the members or directors of the association used to be all appointed but now four of them will be elected and three are appointed from government. That is a change under the self-regulating side of the association itself and it is, again, in the best interest of the public.

The other issue that was raised by my hon. colleague from Port aux Basques was the issue in regards to prepaid funerals. That issue is actually governed under a different act, which is the Prepaid Funeral Services Act. It is currently before the courts. He asked the question, will we continue to monitor the situation. We absolutely will. It is an issue of grave concern, when people of the public are disenfranchised by the actions of another. We will be monitoring the situation. Certainly it is before the courts and I would not want to endeavour to speak any further on that issue due to it being in the courts.

In regard to my other colleague, in regard to I believe it was section 8 pertaining to section 15, I will also consult with my officials in regard to if we can remove that word ‘may', but final decision is made by the minister. We can endeavour and make sure that these three particular regulations are in place and demand that they are in place, before we go forward. To clear the issue totally, I will consult with my officials and come back at committee stage, to see if we will amend the piece of legislation to have the word ‘may' removed.

In regard to my other colleague across the way, I do not have the answers today but I will go back and consult with officials again and I will come back to the House in the committee stage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 11 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Embalmers And Funeral Directors. (Bill 11)

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

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Embalmers And Funeral Directors," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 11)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, it is approaching four o'clock and I believe by consent we have agreed that we would suspend the remaining business of the day to carry on with another task, another pleasant task I might add.

MR. SPEAKER: I would just like to remind members who are present and the viewing audience, that the House will now be adjourning, the adjournment motion will be put forward by the government House Leader, for the regular proceedings, but the House will resume in a different setting in about ten minutes time, where we can witness the ceremony for the unveiling of a portrait of a former Speaker of this House, who served not this particular House but served the Parliament of Newfoundland and Labrador approximately 171 years ago; Mr. Thomas Bennett.

With the direction of the Government House Leader proceedings will adjourn for today, the regular proceedings, and we will meet here again, through television as well, in about ten minutes time.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the House on its rising do adjourn until tomorrow, Wednesday, at two o'clock, and that this House now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do now adjourn until two o'clock tomorrow, being Wednesday.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

This House now stands adjourned.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.