May 16, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 26


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we would like to welcome, from the District of Burin-Placentia West, forty-five Grade 8 and Grade 9 students from Pearce Junior High School in Burin, with their teachers: Jackie Peach and Roland Barbour.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker would like to rule on a point of order raised by the Government House Leader on April 21 with regard to comments made in the House by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair in which the words chaos and corruption were used in reference to the government.

The exact words used by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair on April 20 during the initial question in Question Period were, "Tell me, Minister, is there no bias in this decision, or is this just another example of the chaos and corruption that exists within your government?"

The Speaker has consulted the authorities and the Table officers. Marleau and Montpetit, on page 526, states as follows, "Expressions which are considered unparliamentary when applied to an individual Member have not always been considered so when applied ‘in a generic sense' or to a party."

In this instance, the Speaker cautions members to be careful in the expressions used, but believes the expression under review to be applied in a generic sense and therefore rules there is no point of order.

The Speaker wishes to rule on a point of order raised by the Opposition House Leader on Thursday, May 12, with regard to comments made by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. The expression under consideration is "cutting a deal with Mr. Risley." In the submissions, reference was made by the Government House Leader to comments made by the Leader of the Official Opposition during the same exchange.

The Speaker has reviewed the text as contained in Hansard. The Leader of the Official Opposition made no specific reference to the cutting of a deal during his questions.

The minister's precise comments were, "...there is nobody here cutting deals with Mr. Risley. The only person who might have a cut a deal with Mr. Risley might be the person who is asking the questions."

The Speaker has consulted the authorities and notes the use of the words "might have" in the minister's commentary. The definition of "cut a deal" is to make an agreement or to form a contract.

The minister did not say a deal was cut with Mr. Risley and, in addition, the cutting of a deal with a business or corporation by governments past or present and the public discussion of such an agreement or contract does not, of itself, constitute a point of order.

The Speaker therefore rules there is no point of order in the expressions used on May 12 by either the minister or the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; the hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; and the hon. the Member for the District of Burin-Placentia West.

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on April 29, Mr. Wilfred Cutler, the Town Manager of Ramea, retired after twenty-six years in the position. Today, I wish to acknowledge the tremendous contribution Wilf has made to the town while serving in many capacities in past years.

Wilf began his active community involvement in 1976 when he became a founding member of the union and subsequently served as local president of the FFAW at the fish plant. He served this capacity until assuming the duties of Town Manager.

Mr. Speaker, Wilf was an active member of the Ramea Fire Department for twenty years and served in the position of Chief for six years with the department. In addition, he served twenty years on the Recreation Committee and twenty-one years with the local Corps of the Sea Cadets, where he served two terms as a Commanding Officer.

He continued his support to the community as a member of the Ramea Economic Development Committee for fifteen years, and also a member of the Ramea-Burgeo-Grey River Ferry Committee for fifteen years, and held the position of Chair and Secretary.

Wilf has been active in the church life of the community and served as a member of the local church vestry. Wilf frequently volunteers his time using his musical talents and performs for various community groups in Ramea.

Mr. Speaker, Wilf Cutler can be considered an icon as a community builder, activist and volunteer. As the community of Ramea faced many challenges in past years, Wilf accepted each challenge and worked with many shareholders to achieve the best for Ramea.

As Wilf prepares to enjoy retirement, spend more time at his cabin in White Bear Bay and enjoy time his children and grandchildren, I ask all members of this House to join me in wishing my friends, Wilf and his wife Eunice, many years of health and happiness.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. J. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Justin Oake of Stephenville High who was recently named Stephenville Youth of the Year. I must point out, Mr. Speaker, this is the first time in its thirteen year history that the award went to a male; and, judging by Justin's involvement, it was well deserved.

Justin volunteers on a weekly basis with Big Brothers-Big Sisters where he tutors young students. He has also volunteered for the Canadian Diabetes Association, the Cancer Society Relay for Life, and the World Broomball Championships. He is a youth vestry member and a volunteer at his church.

At Stephenville High School, Justin has been a class representative on the student council, active in Spirit Week, and a member of the concert band and jazz ensemble. He is also a member of the math team and participated in the Science Fair.

Justin is an honour student who achieved the second-highest average in Level I in 2004. Last summer, he attended a Med Quest medical science program at Memorial University where he was a member of the winning research group.

Justin is also a very active athlete; he plays hockey at several levels, including the Stephenville High and the Western Newfoundland AA teams. His team has won gold medals at regional and provincial competitions. He is also a member of the school's track and field, junior basketball and junior volleyball teams. In addition, he plays squash, golf and floor hockey. He has completed the requirements for the Duke of Edinburgh's Silver Award and is seeking the gold award. He was a participant in the Lion's Club District Speak-off, and he participated in Encounters with Canada at the Terry Fox Centre.

I would ask members of the House to join with me in congratulating this fine young man on his achievements to date and to wish him success in his future endeavours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Friday evening, May 13, I had the opportunity to accompany several constituents of mine to Dildo, in the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde. I was honoured to attend and cut the ribbon and officially open the first Baccalieu Quilter's Guild.

Mr. Speaker, seven years ago three ladies started a part-time hobby they still enjoy today and it has grown beyond the Baccalieu Trail. Twenty-nine ladies entered several pieces of their prized work, and what a display it was. The event was open to the general public on Saturday and Sunday and all who attended were treated to a tremendous display of talent.

Mr. Speaker, works of both hand and machine were on display and all in attendance agreed that the work was not only top-notch, but a great example of the culture and heritage that is still alive and well in Conception and Trinity Bay areas.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in congratulating the Baccalieu Quilter's Guild and hope they will continue to display their magnificent workmanship in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure today to rise and pay tribute to an individual in my district, Ms Judi Kelloway. Ms Kelloway is a former teacher and administrator who, along with her husband Keith, take on a number of tasks and have a number of interests in their retirement.

Mr. Speaker, as a former school administrator myself, I know both of these individuals and recognize them for their contributions to their town and Province.

Mr. Speaker, Ms Kelloway, originally from St. John's, has made her life and career in the Town of Burin. Anyone aware of the sport scene in this Province knows of the sport of soccer and its connection to the Burin Peninsula. Likewise, Ms Kelloway has always had a keen interest in the sport of soccer and has done much to sustain and promote the sport locally and provincially. In recognition of this effort, she was recently awarded the Sports Newfoundland and Labrador's Sports Executive of the Year. For her efforts, Ms Kelloway received the Graham Snow Memorial Plaque during a banquet in St. John's.

I ask all members of this House of Assembly to join with me in sending our congratulations to Judi Kelloway on receiving this most deserving award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

 

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my colleagues that nine young people from Newfoundland and Labrador are representing our Province this week at Interchange on Canadian Studies 2005 in Alberta.

Interchange on Canadian Studies is a national not-for-profit organization which aims to increase understanding, knowledge and appreciation of Canada. The event brings student delegates together from all parts of the country to discuss issues which are important to Canada and its people. These conferences and exchanges provide opportunities for young Canadians to meet and listen to prominent speakers and to share ideas and experiences that are significant to Canadians.

This year's gathering started on Saturday, May 14 in Medicine Hat, Alberta and will conclude on May 21. Topics to be discussed during the week include Canada's Environment and the Oil and Gas Industry.

The youth attending the event, Mr. Speaker, represent communities from across the Province. They are: Amanda Singleton from Holy Spirit High School in CBS; Stephen Rogers and Megan Rolls from Discovery Collegiate in Bonavista; Sarah Aubert from Jakeman All Grade in Trout River; Paul MacKay from William Gillett Academy in Charlottetown, Labrador; Leanne Styles from Stephenville High School in Stephenville; Brittany Rowe from Menihek High School in Labrador City; Kayla Oldford from Lester Pearson Memorial High in Wesleyville; and David LeDrew from Indian River High School in Springdale.

Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to the social and educational development of our youth, who are our leaders of tomorrow. We are pleased to support our youth in this endeavour through the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment's Grants to Youth Organizations Program. Funding has also been provided by various school boards and the federal government.

I am sure my colleagues would like to join me in congratulating these young people for their interest in national and provincial issues and wish them the very best as they represent Newfoundland and Labrador this week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement and to say that, we, on this side of the House, want to congratulate the nine individuals who will be attending the conference in Medicine Hat, Alberta and to see that they are going to be discussing issues not only very important to our Province, but also for our country. We, too, want to say that we are committed and totally support the social and educational development of our youth. How true it is to say that they are truly our leaders of tomorrow. I guess our hope and dream, on all sides of the House, is that those well-educated young people, when the time comes, that they will be able to find jobs in our Province and will not have to leave to go outside with the great skills and education that they will have developed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, also, would like to congratulate the young people from across Newfoundland and Labrador on their being selected to attend this very important event in Alberta, the Canadian environment and oil and gas industry. It is obviously something that we are very concerned about here in the Province. It would be great to see these nine young people get some exposure to another part of the country, particularly one like Alberta, which is so involved in the oil and gas industry. I am sure the insights that they gain and the friends they make will be valuable for them in the future, and I am certainly pleased to see government support their efforts to have this very valuable experience.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to inform my hon. colleagues that May 15-21 has been designated as National Police Week. Throughout the Province, the RNC and the RCMP will organize and participate in activities and displays in communities and schools that promote the concept of police and community working together to enhance public safety and public security.

Police Week does promote an opportunity for police organizations right across the country to build stronger partnerships. Strong community ties help us fight and prevent crime. During Police Week, both the RCMP and the RNC, in partnership with communities have an opportunity to share experiences and challenges. These activities provide an opportunity to work together by listening, understanding, and contributing to the building of a strong complement of volunteers who help keep communities safe.

Mr. Speaker, in this Province we have approximately 750 police officers who work hard to protect their communities and the families who live in those communities. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the superior efforts, the outstanding qualities and achievements of police officers in this Province. Police Week is a wonderful opportunity to pay tribute to the hard work, dedication and commitment, and to acknowledge the sacrifices that police officers have made in keeping our community safe. Additionally, I can advise that a memorial service recognizing Police and Peace Officers is scheduled for this Thursday, at the Seventh Day Adventist Church here in St. John's.

I would also like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to note that May 15 is recognized internationally as Peace Officer Memorial Day. Last year, I had the privilege of participating in the official opening of the Peace and Police Officers Memorial on the grounds of the Confederation Building. We are proud to have a Memorial in this Province which pays tribute to those peace and police officers who have died in the line of duty. It is also a monument to recognize families and friends who have suffered the loss of loved ones and colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, we are proud of the work done in this Province by the RCMP and the RNC, and we support the efforts of our police officers. Police Week is a great opportunity to acknowledge our police forces for their active community involvement both on and off the job, and I encourage awareness and participation in Police Week activities and continued support of police officers throughout the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement today.

It is indeed an appropriate time of year, each year annually, to recognize our police forces in this Province, and also, through the memorial services, to pay tribute to those peace officers and police officers who have passed on.

Policy officers certainly do play a huge role in our communities. The whole concept of policing in the last numbers of years has changed dramatically. Instead of our citizens seeing police officers now as enforcers of the law, they are seen more as citizens, generally, citizens who co-operate with town councils and with charitable organizations, people who have an interaction with the citizens. It is not a matter of Mr. Policeman anymore saying, you shalt not do, it is a matter of a policeman playing a more active day-to-day role. I think that has been a very positive development in our communities. We certainly are blessed in this Province with having two very well-trained, very professional, and certainly dedicated police forces, the RCMP and the RNC.

I guess the only downside - not a downside to the police officers because they are all very professional. It is a disappointment, I guess, in seeing that they are not paid equally. We have two police forces here that enforce the same laws. For example, the Criminal Code of Canada or under the drug laws of this Province, you can have an RNC officer and an RCMP officer -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You can have two officers in this Province right now in downtown, St. John's, for example, working on a major drug file, one is an RNC and one is an RCMP, they are working on a joint force and yet they are not paid the same for enforcing the same laws. I hope someday we will get to the point where both of these very well-trained and very professional police forces are paid the same for doing the very same work.

Hats off to the police, and continue to do the great job that you have been doing.

Thank you.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for a copy of his statement.

I would like to echo the words that have been said both by the minister and the Opposition House Leader because the police in our Province do play a very important role in protecting us, as a society.

I guess the other important thing that I would like to note here, to the minister, is that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, which polices the greater population in the Province today, including my district, are understaffed considerably, and, with the new graduates coming into the force through the training program at Memorial - which, by the way, was a great move to have our own training facilities -

I know, Mr. Speaker, my time is up, but -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. gentleman's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. COLLINS: Maybe I should just sit down before I stand up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: I want to say, and state to the minister, the great work that the police forces do in our Province. I know in my own district, with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, it is not just a matter of policing, Mr. Speaker; it is the things that they are involved with in the community as well.

I think a very important point was made by the Member for Burgeo & La Poile when he stated that at one time police officers were looked at as strictly enforcers of the law, and with fear. Now they are more looked at with respect and as fellow citizens in our communities, so I, too, would like to congratulate and celebrate National Police Week, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has stated time and time again that his government would follow the proper tendering procedures when handing out contracts. It did not happen with the $150,000 VON study in his own district, and it did not happen with the handing out of a $300,000 advertising contract to his close political buddies for the Atlantic Accord. We now have an example in which the College of the North Atlantic in Corner Brook awarded over $637,000 in computer equipment contracts within a one-hour period.

I ask the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker: Was he aware of this expenditure of funds in such a short period of time?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: In response to that, Mr. Speaker, the College of the North Atlantic look at their particular needs. They look at their needs and they respond according to the requirements and again in accordance with the Public Tender Act.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, a couple of things of note: This $637,000 award was done within two weeks of the end of the fiscal year. The total amount almost matches the annual computer budget for the entire College of the North Atlantic for the whole Province, let alone one campus in Corner Brook.

I ask the minister again: Where did the college campus in Corner Brook get their hands on over $637,000 for new computer equipment in the dying days of the last fiscal year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, Mr. Speaker, in looking at the amount of money, it matches up with the need. As we come into the end of the fiscal year, there is an opportunity for any institution to look at their budget and to put the money where it is needed, and, of course, this was the case in this situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the minister should check into this a bit further, instead of trying to give some pat answer about meeting the needs. There is a full budget for a full year magically appearing in the last couple of days of the fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, of the six tenders that were awarded, three of the tender competitions were only open for period of - get this now! - five minutes. The tender period lasted a total of five minutes. One of the tenders that was awarded in the five-minute period was in excess of $10,000, Mr. Speaker, and expenditures over $10,000 that need to be exempted from the Public Tender Act are supposed to be approved by the minister.

I ask the minister again: Did he really know about this and did he authorize this expenditure in a five-minute period at the end of the fiscal year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, in looking at the College of the North Atlantic and their ability to move forward with regard to their needs, I will say to the hon. member opposite that the procedures that were followed were in keeping with the procedures of the Public Tender Act, and that everything was done according to the regulations as such.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think most people in the Province would find it a bit of a strange Public Tender Act if you can award over $10,000 in less than five minutes. There is not much of a chance to bid competitively.

Mr. Speaker, does the minister - and I will give him an opportunity to answer again - does the minister feel it is acceptable for the College of the North Atlantic, one campus, or anyone for that matter, to be able to spend over $637,000, all of that, within a one-hour period while apparently not following proper tender procedures?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, the amount of money and the time that the hon. member is talking about - he talks about apparently, and I say it is apparently because the process that went on - again, I trust the College of the North Atlantic, which have to follow the procedures of the Public Tender Act. They are guided by regulations that clearly state what they can and cannot do, and I am certainly confident that the College of the North Atlantic responded to a need, obviously very quickly, and did what they had to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is becoming more and more obvious that the minister does not really know yet what we are talking about. I would suggest, before he speaks to the media further, he might actually get some information and find out what has happened.

Mr. Speaker, the largest individual contract, one of them $10,000, was awarded in five minutes. The largest individual contract for computer equipment was $505,000, over half a million dollars, and no emergency, I would suggest, in the middle of March if they had the money in their budget all year long since April 1. In contrast, that tender did last at least one full hour for half a million dollars. In contrast, the Public Tender Act sets out the guidelines as to how contracts are supposed to be tendered, but they were clearly not followed in this instance. Does the minister know what companies received these contracts and why the contracts were awarded in such a rushed manner at the end of a fiscal year? Does he know that answer?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, I say to the hon. member opposite, that the College of the North Atlantic certainly plan out their year. They look at the needs and if computer equipment needs to be upgraded, whether it is in September, October, November or March, they do it. This is what has been done here.

I say to the hon. member, that again I have full confidence in the College of the North Atlantic that they are carrying out the business of our public post-secondary in a manner, which I say to the hon. member, is certainly satisfying this minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

Again, I would suggest, I am trying to be helpful to the minister. He might want to check his own words. He said they plan out the year, but in the answer before he said there was an emergency in March. So, which was it? Did they plan, or was there an emergency with respect to computers?

Mr. Speaker, we have had several instances where the rules were not followed, as the Premier indicated they would be, to serve the interest of the Premier himself in his own district. I mentioned the VON, I mentioned the awarding of the contract to his political buddies. This incident, over half a million dollars in an hour, $637,000 all together, also happened at the College of the North Atlantic Campus in Corner Brook, in the Premier's own district of Humber West, again.

I ask the Premier: Did he know anything about these tender contracts before they were awarded in haste, in five minutes or an hour, for well over half a million dollars at the end of the fiscal year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for that question. No, I had no knowledge of that. I do not make it my business to go and check into every single contract that is awarded by every government agency or institution that is in the Province. They conduct their business within their budget. That is what they do.

I can tell him though, that generally from an IT perspective in the Province, there are serious problems with information technology within government. We have appointed a new CIO. He has done an extensive overview and an extensive audit of everything that is in government. We have antiquated equipment. I am told it is twenty to twenty-five years old. Commodores are still being used in the government. So, we are facing some considerable expenditures within government on the information technology side. That is a reality.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The exact information on the College of the North Atlantic, I have absolutely no knowledge of it. I can certainly tell the Leader of the Opposition that I will be inquiring and checking into it, but I am quite certain that nothing improper was done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, during the last provincial election the Premier told the people of the Bay St. George region that he would ensure a timely resolution of our energy and fibre supply. This was put in the Western Star in Corner Brook five days after the election with the Premier's own words: You've got my commitment.

It has been eighteen months and we have seen no solution to the problems, except a possible $1 million secret deal. What steps have been taken to ensure a secure fibre supply for this mill, as promised by the Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: First of all, Mr. Speaker, with respect to a $1 million secret deal, it was hardly secret when it was myself, on behalf of the government, who released publicly what potentially we were going to do. So, to that point, there has been absolutely no take up on that arrangement. Zero. There has been no money from provincial coffers go to Abitibi.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, to the issue of wood supply. My suggestion to the member opposite is to come a little more current in terms of what the issue, with respect to the West Coast, is. In our discussions with Abitibi over the last eighteen months, the issues have been surrounding power. They themselves have indicated to government that the issue of wood supply is one that they believe is manageable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, we know the commitments that were made. We know very little, if anything, has been done on this issue. We know the government offered the $1 million deal as a sign of good faith to see the books of Abitibi. According to the minister, this has never happened.

I ask the minister: What is the status of the negotiations with Abitibi concerning an energy supply for the mill at Stephenville?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am not sure if the hon. member was here or not, Mr. Speaker, but I will review for him again. First of all, Mr. Speaker, we have indicated to Abitibi that the spirit and intent of Bill 27, which demands a two-machine operation continue to exist in Grand Falls-Windsor up until 2010, that we expect Abitibi to fulfill the obligations under that legislation. If they do not, I think publicly and certainly privately, Abitibi and the people of the Province are aware of what government's response would be: that we would immediately revoke the licence associated to that legislation.

With respect to the update of status on negotiations at Abitibi on potential power supply, it was our view - and we released it last week - that we indicated that we have asked Hydro to begin those discussions and negotiations. That is the update. That is the status. To the best of my knowledge, those discussions and negotiations are about to commence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, we know the minister has stated publicly that Bill 27, which takes away fibre and timber rights from Abitibi, will be enforced if Abitibi does not operate a two-machine operation in Grand Falls-Windsor. We know the Premier personally committed to a timely solution to the fibre shortage in Stephenville.

I ask the minister: Would you update this House on what action this government has taken to fulfill this commitment that was made by the Premier almost two years ago?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the member just does not get it, because the tone and tenor of his questions today are directed at a commitment the Premier made with respect to fibre supply.

The fact of the matter is this: In our discussions and negotiations with Abitibi, the issue of fibre supply for Stephenville has not been an issue they have raised because they believe it is manageable, Mr. Speaker. We have indicated that. Again, the member obviously does not get it.

With respect to the issue of fibre supply, Abitibi believes - they have indicated to government - that the issue is manageable. With respect to that, Mr. Speaker, other than that, there is nothing more I can update you on because we have had no discussions with Abitibi with respect to access to fibre supply for Stephenville.

The fundamental issue for Abitibi, with government, over the past eighteen months, has been the potential of developing two power contracts on the Exploits River. That is what our discussions primarily have been about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week the media reported that a man who had worked at the U.S. Military Base in Argentia had been diagnosed with cancer and he believed his sickness to be linked to the storage of nuclear weapons at that site.

I ask the Minister of Justice, who is also the Minister Responsible for Intergovernmental Affairs, if he might tell the House what representation, if any, his government has had with officials in either Ottawa or Washington to determine what health care risk exists for others in the area who may have been exposed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to take the hon. member's question under advisement, seek the answer to the question, and report back to him in due course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: I take it from your answer, Mr. Minister, you haven't had any requests to date from anyone in this Province to check on this matter. I would appreciate if we might have your commitment that you will, in fact, undertake an investigation because one of the issues here is the American reluctance, shall we say, to release records associated with this issue. We would appreciate not only your commitment to check into it, but also a commitment that you will request of the appropriate American or Ottawa officials that the records associated with the use or non-use of basically anything that verifies the factual circumstances of this issue, that they would be forthcoming.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly be happy to give my commitment to the hon. member to check into that and seek the information that he is requesting.

I also understand the American Counsel General may even be in the Province today, and possibly we might be able to make inquiries to him to obtain the records that the hon. member talked about, the American records.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Education.

Last week, the College of the North Atlantic announced the cancellation of a Civil Engineering Technology program at the Ridge Road Campus, despite the fact the minister's own document, Career Search 2004, indicated that there was an 84.7 per cent success rate for graduates.

I want to ask the minister: Why is the minister sitting idly by when the public college is getting rid of successful programs at a time when the Province is faced with serious shortages of skilled labour?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the hon. member, certainly the program has not been cancelled. It was looked at. There were two possibilities, one for here in St. John's and one for Corner Brook. The decision of the College was, looking at it and weighing up the different sites, that it was better to continue that program in Corner Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the College sited the unemployment rate of 27 per cent amongst graduates as the excuse. Yet, this weekend the College relied on the same Career Search 2004 to claim an 86 per cent success rate for graduates for a program in the Burin campus for electrical engineering technology.

What I want to ask the minister: Is his document, Career Search 2004, of any value to students in this Province if the College is shutting down programs that have claimed success rates: 84 per cent, 85 per cent, and 86 per cent? What is the value of this document? Can students rely on this if they are going to make choices about careers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: I certainly apologize to the member for interrupting his flow of questions, but the answer that I gave first, I indicated that the program has not shut down, that the program - there were two sites, one in St. John's and one in Corner Brook. When they weighed up everything, and one of them was the employment placement - again, you are shaking your head. When we looked at the employment prospects from the Corner Brook site it was much better than the St. John's one. Therefore, the decision was made by the College to put it in Corner Brook and keep it there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, that is not what the College said. In fact, the success rate, according to Career Search 2004, for the Corner Brook campus is actually less. They did not say they were going to boost the program in Corner Brook and they did not say they were going to add more staff to be able to run the program.

Does this minister know what is going on in this program, and will he finally release the White Paper on post-secondary education so we will know what the real plans of this government are for the College of the North Atlantic?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, I say to the hon. member, the College of the North Atlantic looked at these two programs that were offered in two different sites, and given the comparative nature of the two programs, the decision was made to go with the Corner Brook site because, again, better employment prospects and so on.

Now, if you are looking at other questions that you put at me, Career Search is a document that is recognized across this nation. It is one that is used quite extensively in our schools by guidance counsellors, and the information that is contained there is very, very comprehensive in allowing students to make the right choices as they go forward in post-secondary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government has thrown the crab fishery of this Province into turmoil in a politically motivated attempt to save the political hide of the Minister of Fisheries and to favour the business friends of the Premier. With crab having left the Province and the season cut short, many plant workers will likely be left without enough hours to qualify for EI.

I ask the Premier: Is he committed to looking after all plant workers whose lives have been disrupted by the turmoil he and his minister have created in this industry?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would like to thank the hon. member for the same question he asked, I think, last week or the week before.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious situation in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Premier has stated and the Minister of Fisheries has stated, and I have stated in this House of Assembly that we would be there for the plant workers of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we are looking at putting a program in place to assist the plant workers. We know there was a sense of urgency with this and recent developments - I am sure the hon. member would know that. I mean the crab fishers in this Province could be back fishing within the next few days and hopefully we will not have to go down that road. But, if we need be, Mr. Speaker, I say that we will be there for the plant workers in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, as I have stated, some of the crab has gone to another province and the hours are not there for the people to qualify, so I suggest that they should get in the program.

Mr. Speaker, the problems we are talking about here today are 5,000 or 6,000 people who totally depend on the crab fishery, and another 4,000 or 5,000 people who partly depend on the crab to get their hours to qualify for EI. We are already hearing reports that workers who partly depend on the crab processing sector are being told that they will not qualify for any assistance.

I ask the Premier: Is your assistance program going to involve workers impacted or will some workers be left out?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I do not know who might be telling these people this information, other than it must be the members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, this program is not finalized yet. We are in the process of putting this plan together as we speak. We know the extent of this proposed program may change because of the fact that the fishers may be back to work within the next few days and shortly after that the plant workers will be back to work. So, Mr. Speaker, I really hope that the hon. member is not trying to fearmonger out there and make things worse than what they actually are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. minister I am not fearmongering, and those questions and answers came from the Premier's office.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Bonavista South is already on record as saying that a minimum wage program will not be enough.

I ask the Premier: Does he agree with the Member for Bonavista South, and will the program involve wages comparable to what those people earn in the plants, or will it be a minimum wage program?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it more than passing strange what the members on the opposite side of the House will hang their hat on. I said last week, we have said, that we will be there for the plant workers, and the plan and the program has not been finalized. We understand the urgency of it, Mr. Speaker. It is changing daily. As we speak, it is changing. As soon as the fishers get back to work - and we hope, on this side of the House of Assembly, I don't know about on that side, that the fishers will get back to work and that the plant workers will get a fair number of weeks this year. We will be there for what is needed in due course, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Minister of Justice.

Minister, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture keeps telling the people of this Province that he was ordered, by the court, to issue a license to St. Anthony, because the decision by the former minister was patently unreasonable.

Minister, you are a lawyer, you are the Minister of Justice. Will you confirm that the court decision never, ever stated that the Minister of Fisheries was bound to issue a new crab license to St. Anthony? In fact, the three judges of the Court of Appeal clearly stated that the issuance of a license was not automatic. Minister, will you clear up this misunderstanding by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and confirm to the people of this Province that the minister at no time was ordered by the court to issue that license?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I happen to have in front of me here the Hansard from that very day. What the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture did, in fact, say - and I can quote from page 14 of Hansard for the day in question which is May 11 - he said, "I never did consider issuing a crab license in St. Anthony until I was ordered by the court to reconsider the patently unreasonably decision of the Member for Twillingate & Fogo."

MR. REID: Where is the part about the court (inaudible)?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, by chance I happen to have the decision here, the disposition of the decision. On page 37 of the decision of the Newfoundland Court of Appeal clearly states: The minister's decision - referring to the patently unreasonable decision of the previous Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture - the minister's decision is set aside and the matter is remitted to the minister for reconsideration, which is exactly what the current Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is very nice to see that the Minister of Justice, being the honourable person that he is, could not bring himself to put the spin on it that the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries have done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: We all know, Mr. Speaker, that it was a patently political decision by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for his own district, not because the court ordered him.

Minister, I ask you: The Premier said recently, in response to the discussion of this same issue, that they had to issue the St. Anthony licence or face possible damages. Minister, you have read the Court of Appeal decision. The Premier - and you know it - is absolutely wrong. The only damages claim related to an engine room extension, and this claim was rejected by the court.

Minister, to avoid having the Premier look like he is misleading the public, would you confirm that his statements about damages for St. Anthony, and that being his justification for the licence, are absolutely inaccurate and incorrect?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question but, unfortunately, I cannot agree with the premise to his question. The disposition in the decision says the St. Anthony Seafoods claim for damages is remitted to the trial judge for disposition in accordance with his decision.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier, of course, as usual, was right again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier.

The Premier has stated publicly that the plant production -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I know members are very enthused, and that kind of thing, but the Speaker has recognized the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. I ask all members if they could curb their enthusiasm a little bit.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier.

The Premier has stated publicly that the plant production pilot project will only last for this season. In fact, the Minister of Fisheries is out saying it will only be on for three months. Will the Premier commit that this pilot project will not extend beyond this year, even if Mr. Cashin asks for additional time to see if the pilot project will work?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to throw a bouquet to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo for his comments in the paper during the week. In The Independent, he called government's decision of bringing FFAW founder Richard Cashin in as an independent voice the only thing that Williams did right.

I want to thank you very much for acknowledging the decision to bring Mr. Cashin in, which was acknowledged by Mr. McCurdy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: It has been indicated by the minister that we are looking at a plan for the plant workers. We hope to get the fishermen back to work now, get them back on the water, get the crab industry moving again, which is what our goal is.

As you know, we basically took the pilot project and we cut it in half. We set up an independent committee that is being chaired by Mr. Cashin. Contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition said - the Leader of the Opposition made the accusation that Mr. Cashin was on the government payroll and totally disagreed. What I would like to know is: Do they agree with each other? Because it does not seem like they do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the people of the Province who just listened to the Premier comment about how I said he did one thing right, that is the only thing I said you did right in that article, I guarantee you that.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier got up again and talked all around the question and would not answer it, so I will ask him again: Will you commit that this pilot project won't go beyond this year, even if Mr. Cashin asks for an extension in order to see if the pilot project will work? Now answer it, yes or no!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we have indicated that the independent committee will be set up, that it will oversee and administer the project, and at the end of the project the independent chairman, Mr. Cashin, will make a recommendation. At the end of the process, when he makes his recommendation, government will follow his recommendation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

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

I rise to table the 2004 Annual Report by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to section 26.5(a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling one Order in Council relating to funding pre-commitments for the 2006-2007 fiscal year.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents.

Notices of Motions.

Notices of Motion

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

MS WHALEN: I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act. (Bill 35)

Also, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act. (Bill 36)

Thank you.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 39)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition by a large number of residents of our Province concerning gambling. They are wanting the right, by way of a free public vote, to decide whether or not the VLTs, and now the new electronic KENO, are something that we want in our Province or not. They are asking for the right to have their concerns heard by way of a vote that would be held in conjunction with the municipal elections in September of this year.

Many of the communities around the Province have written the Minister of Municipal Affairs - I have copies of all the letters that have been written - and the vast majority of people who responded to my request to write the minister, the vast number of communities that responded, were in favour of having a vote conducted on the issue of VLTs, whether they should be allowed to operate in the Province or not. Even the ones who did not agree with the vote being held in conjunction with the municipal election wrote the minister and told him that they still thought that a vote should be held, that a plebiscite should be held in the Province concerning the legitimacy of whether or not they should be admitted to our Province.

I also want to take this opportunity to say that government is very much aware of the problems that gambling has caused in our Province up to today. Government has conducted a study to find out exactly the prevalence of gambling problems. I would ask the Premier to become personally involved in this issue and force Atlantic Lotto to delay the implementation of electronic KENO to this Province until this study is conducted and the people of the Province know full well the effects and how prevalent gambling problems are in our society.

I think it is hypocritical, given the moves that government made during the last Budget - we can argue whether they went far enough or not, but there was an acknowledgment that gambling is a problem. There was an acknowledgment by government to cut back the number of VLTs in our Province today, to provide money for addiction services and education. Mr. Speaker, this latest move by Atlantic Lottery has undone any good that the Budget measures may have created because now, in spite of all this, electronic KENO coming into the bars and the corner stores of our Province is going to cause untold more problems without even a study to determine the problem as it exists today.

I am asking the government, and the Premier, to personally see to it that Atlantic Lottery delays the implementation of electronic KENO, hopefully forever, Mr. Speaker, but at least until the study into the prevalence of gambling problems in our Province has been completed and made public.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition here today with more than 500 names, from the Community of Harbour Breton.

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to prevent FPI from taking the portion of its fish quota, that has been traditionally processed in Harbour Breton, out of the community.

And, as in duty bound your petitioners will every pray.

Mr. Speaker, I would like, at the beginning, to draw very similarities between what is happening in the community of St. Anthony and its parallel in Harbour Breton. If one were to look at St. Anthony, Mr. Speaker - and I am not saying anything against the community, I am sure that the mayor down there would probably come to the same conclusion - you have the federal government representing the quota of crab for the Province and for the Atlantic area. The provincial government allocates or says where that particular quota is to be processed. In this case, not only did they say where the quota would be processed, but they also gave the community the amount that would be processed there. The only difference between St. Anthony and Harbour Breton is that in St. Anthony you have crab and in Harbour Breton you have groundfish. The federal government, like it does for crab, sets a quota for groundfish for Atlantic Canada and in this Province. The provincial government tells FPI when they apply where their process of fish will happen, whether it is in Harbour Breton, whether it is in Fortune or whether it is in Marystown.

In this situation, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced, with every bone that is in my body, that FPI is waiting and cannot believe they have not gotten a phone call from the government telling them to go back into Harbour Breton and process groundfish; because it is seamless, there is no difference. The only difference that we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, is the species of fish, groundfish versus crab. If that particular quota was processed in the Town of Harbour Breton, then there would be no need for provincial government short-term money. There would be no need for the federal government extra money for the short term for the people of Harbour Breton because the 350 people in that particular town would be working today.

I was there on the weekend, Mr. Speaker, and the people are really concerned. They are puzzled about: why the difference in the two communities, because they are the same? The people are leaving. I talked to some of the people on Friday when I was in Harbour Breton as to what is happening. They are leaving their community and they are going away. They are convinced that this should not happen. They are convinced that there is no difference in what they are asking for in Harbour Breton than what is happening in St. Anthony. They look at it as being a double standard.

I would, once again, ask the provincial government to take a second look at what is happening in Harbour Breton, because I say to the House and to the people of Harbour Breton, to the medium of the television, there is no difference between what is happening in St. Anthony and what is happening in Harbour Breton, other than the species of fish. Harbour Breton needs assistance.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. LANGDON: By leave, just to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. LANGDON: Just a minute.

So, Mr. Speaker, the people of Harbour Breton needs the provincial government in coming to their aid and assisting them in telling FPI: you either go back into Harbour Breton and produce the groundfish or we will take that portion of your quota that has been traditionally processed in the town for the last thirty, forty, fifty years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of in excess of 3,000 people on the Burin Peninsula who are calling on the government to fund a CT scanner and a dialysis unit for the Burin Peninsula.

Part of the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, is: WHEREAS a CT scanner and dialysis unit are now considered standard services at all regional hospitals.

Mr. Speaker, the people who have signed this petition have done so because they know how important this piece of medical diagnostic equipment is, no matter where you live in Newfoundland and Labrador, but certainly on the Burin Peninsula where the weather sometimes can be so severe that the road is closed for days at a time. They know how serious it is, that if you are in a serious accident and you need to be diagnosed, in a lot of cases, especially if you have a head injury, it is so important to have access to a CT scanner. What we are finding on the Burin Peninsula, and there have been incidents of this where people have, indeed, been in vehicle accidents and have had to wait at the regional hospital in Burin, cannot get through by an ambulance and cannot be airlifted, in some cases, because, of course, the airstrip in Winterland has been fogged in. So, what we are finding on the Burin Peninsula, of course, is that by not having access to this particular piece of equipment, a CT scanner, poses a real threat to the people who are in serious accidents.

What the people on the Burin Peninsula are asking the government to do, is to live up to our previous commitment by the Liberal government to put a CT scanner at the regional hospital in Burin so that people can access that piece of equipment, along with the other medical equipment that is so important, which was put there by previous governments. As an example, a bone density machine, a mammography unit and a radiography unit.

Then we have the need for a dialysis unit on the Burin Peninsula. The people down there have been giving freely, volunteering to fundraise for both a CT scanner and a dialysis unit. They have done that, and they continue to do it. In fact, they have so much money raised for the dialysis unit that they have put it aside and do not want it used for anything other than that unit because they recognize, again, the danger in not having a unit. People, of course, they cannot live on the Burin Peninsula if they need to have access to a proper dialysis unit. They have to move, in a lot of cases, to St. John's; leave their families behind or uproot their families and have them move from the Burin Peninsula as well. This is not good for any family involved, Mr. Speaker.

We are calling on the government, again, to acknowledge that this is a serious issue and that no matter where you live in Newfoundland and Labrador, you should have access to quality health care. In the case of the Burin Peninsula, the residents on the Burin Peninsula are calling on members opposite, especially the Member for Burin-Placentia West, to speak up, make the case for a CT scanner. I will continue to do it as the MHA for the District of Grand Bank and my colleague, the Member for Bellevue, will continue to do it on behalf of the people that he represents. But on behalf of the entire Burin Peninsula, when you have a member who sits on the government side, the people are asking him to stand up, be heard, ask the government to, in fact, deliver on a CT scanner for the Burin Peninsula and the dialysis unit.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am standing today on behalf of the residents of Grand Falls-Buchans district. My petition is directed to the government in asking them to halt current discussions with Abitibi Consolidated regarding a potential power arrangement on the Exploits River; two developments that would, as far as we know, give power to both the Stephenville mill and also the mill in Grand Falls-Windsor.

Mr. Speaker, our Minister of Natural Resources broke his word. He broke his word to the people of Grand Falls-Buchans. He broke his word to the people of Central Newfoundland. He broke his word to the people of our Province. He said on May 4 in this House, and it is recorded in Hansard, that he would not negotiate any power arrangements with Abitibi at all until he first had their commitment that they would maintain a two machine operation at the Grand Falls mill. What did he do? That was May 4. What did he do on May 6? He gave that same commitment to the union, he gave that same commitment to every municipality in Central Newfoundland, and on May 6, which was only two days after that, he went and directed Newfoundland Hydro to begin discussions with Abitibi-Consolidated regarding two power projects on the Exploits River.

Now, this is supposed to be a government that wants to portray, I guess, a look of accountability and transparency. Well, we have not seen that in the way that the Minister of Natural Resources handled this file. He was agreeing that he would not have a discussion, but when the Premier came back from Houston all of that changed. All of that changed when the Premier came back from Houston. He must have said to his Minister of Natural Resources: You are out too far on a limb and we are going to have to make decisions in a month or two; you had better come back from that position you are in out there.

What the Minister of Natural Resources did to the people of Central Newfoundland, and in particular to the people who depend on their livelihood from the Abitibi mill, he broke his word and began discussions with Abitibi on the power project.

This probably makes no impact on this minister, but there is a matter of credibility here. It is a huge credibility deficit that this Minister of Natural Resources has; and, in doing so, he is putting the lives of at least 220 employees who work for Abitibi-Consolidated at risk by that very statement that he made on Friday, May 6.

This petition calls on the Minister of Natural Resources, who represents the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, to halt discussions immediately with Abitibi on power.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Just about thirty seconds, if I could.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has requested leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted to clue up.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have nine pages of people who are affected, those who work at the Abitibi-Consolidated mill, many who are well known to, I would say, the Member for Windsor-Springdale. I am sure he will know everyone who is listed on these nine sheets.

Mr. Speaker, I will close my petition for today but I will be back again tomorrow.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today again to present a petition from constituents of Conception Bay North, friends and relatives, people who are accustomed to the situation of Mildred and Clovia Baker of Carbonear. Mildred and Clovia are in wheelchairs, they are fed through feeding tubes, they require assistance breathing, and they cannot perform most tasks that, I guess, all of us take for granted. These people had twenty-four-hour home care, and they have had their home care reduced by five hours a day. This twenty-four-hour home care is essential to the well-being of Mildred and Clovia Baker, Mr. Speaker.

I have, today, hundreds of names of people who support these people in the area. They have numerous medical problems, endorsed by their doctors. The doctors cannot understand, the clergy in the area cannot understand, why these two ladies would be subjected to reduced home care. For no apparent reason, these people have lost five hours of home care a day.

I call upon the Acting Minister of Health and Community Services, I call upon the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, to take up their case and find these extra five hours. Surely heavens, with the things that have happened in recent weeks - in particular, as mentioned today in the House, the $600,000-plus for computers, because money was left over in the budget of the College of the North Atlantic - surely heavens, Mr. Speaker, this government can find a way to find an extra five hours a day for these two people so that, when they are left those five hours a day unattended, they can turn up the thermostat in the living room or have somebody turn it up for them.

The other night the temperature dropped, as it is apt to do here in Newfoundland in the spring at this time of the year, and they could not respond. They had to sit there in the cold until their home care worker was scheduled to come in. They could not turn up that thermostat.

A package came with their medical supplies. They could not answer the door. Thankfully, the pastor of their church happened to be driving along and recognized what the problem was, when he saw the courier knocking on the door and could not get an answer. He saw the problem there. He went in and took delivery of their medical supplies.

I have letters from the pastor, I have letters from neighbours and friends in the neighbourhood, supporting the plight of the Bakers. Mildred and Clovia Baker have been good, hard-working people. Mildred has raised a nice family. Her husband just passed away recently. Her daughter Clovia has become so dependent upon the environment of that household, it is unfair that these two ladies should be left there alone five hours a day without care, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask again: Would the government please look at this issue again and try to find some solution to their problems?

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to present a petition on behalf of residents in my district with regard to health care in that particular region.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Labrador health board and the Grenfell board amalgamated to form the new Grenfell-Labrador Health Authority within the past year. In the amalgamation of this particular board we have also seen an accumulated debt of $14 million, a debt that people would like to see the government pay down; because they feel that, if the debt is not addressed, the end result for them, in this particular area, would be the cut of health care services.

Mr. Speaker, this new health authority is operating in the most rural, most remote and most isolated regions of our Province, in rural coastal communities all throughout Labrador. It is a board that is already stretched to the max financially in terms of what they can and cannot do.

Recently, the government did commission a HayGroup report by an independent consulting group to look at the recommendations around health care in that region, and some of those recommendations, Mr. Speaker, were actually frightening. One of them, in particular, recommended that the residents in the Labrador Straits, the 3,000 residents in that area who currently depend upon health care services provided to the Grenfell-Labrador Health Authority through the Forteau clinic, that those people would be referred to Quebec, to the hospital in Blanc-Sablon, in another Province, for medical services. Now, this is quite alarming, I would say to you, for people who live in that particular area. I have asked, on a number of occasions, that government dismiss that recommendation and that they would make a firm commitment to people now that the physicians would be maintained at the Forteau hospital, that patients would not be referred to a health care facility in another province outside of their area, in this case in Blanc-Sablon in the Province of Quebec, for health care services.

Mr. Speaker, already we use a lot of the services of that particular health corporation, and already there are massive amounts of billing being done through MCP back to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for specialized services and treatment. I do not think that the people in this region should be forced to have to obtain health care services in a hospital outside of their own Province. I think that government should stand and remain committed to having physicians operate out of the Forteau hospital and, in addition to that, remain committed in offering the services, the complement of services, that are presently being offered through the hospital in St. Anthony where we have been able to enjoy a good standard and a good level of health care in the Northern Peninsula and in all regions of Southern Labrador. The only way that we can continue to have that quality of care and be able to maintain those kinds of services is - and only is - when the government makes a firm commitment that the debt of the boards will be addressed and that the recommendations of the HayGroup will not be administered on behalf of the government but in fact will be thrown out, so I ask the government to commit to that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

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

Motion 2, in the name of the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act. ( Bill 33)

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 Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act. ( Bill 33)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act," carried. ( Bill 33)

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: Bill, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act. (Bill 33).

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

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

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 33 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 3, in the name of the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act. ( Bill 34)

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 Victims Of Crime Services Act. ( Bill 34).

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Victims of Crime Services Act," carried. ( Bill 34)

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act. ( Bill 34).

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

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

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 34 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 4, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Monday, May 16.

Are we ready for the question?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, Motion 5, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded according to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn today, Monday, May 16, at 10:00 p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Order 11, second reading a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, Bill 28.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 28, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, we now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act." (Bill 28)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in my place, as Minister responsible for Aboriginal Affairs, this afternoon to move second reading of Bill 28 which is An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, which we ratified in this Legislature, I believe, in December of last year.

Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation is fairly routine and I think it is pretty well outlined in the explanatory note. The purpose of the bill is to ratify the Labrador Inuit Tax Treatment Agreement as is required under the terms of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we were very pleased as a government to introduce the main body of this legislation into the House last December and we are very grateful, as are the members of the LIA, that the House approved the legislation. Members will remember that, that took place in December of last year.

That agreement, however, requires that there also be provincial ratification to give effect to a Tax Treatment Agreement. The Tax Treatment Agreement, Mr. Speaker, is a federal-provincial Labrador Inuit Association agreement. In other words it is a tripartite agreement between the three signatories to the treaty, which primarily provides for tax treatment of the Inuit government that will be created once the land claims agreement comes into effect.

Mr. Speaker, these tax treatment agreements are standard elements of land claim agreements. They are standard elements that go into every other land claims treaty in the country. The Nunatsiavut government and the five community governments that will be created under the Land Claims Agreement will enable the Labrador Inuit to pursue their own destiny, to make their own critical decisions about economic and social development in their homeland and to provide programs and services that are important to them as Labrador Inuit.

The Tax Treatment Agreement, Mr. Speaker, deals with the tax treatment of Inuit capital and the Inuit settlement trust. The term of the Tax Treatment Agreement is for fifteen years. The Tax Treatment Agreement will come into effect on the effective date of the Land Claims Agreement itself. So members will recall that while this Legislature have ratified the treaty, the federal-provincial governments and the LIA have signed the treaty, the treaty in fact, though, cannot come into effect until it is passed by the Parliament of Canada, and that yet remains to be done.

The Tax Treatment Agreement provides an exemption from certain federal and provincial taxes for the Nunatsiavut government, the Inuit community governments and their corporations. It also includes a reopening, if another Aboriginal body reaches a more favourable tax treatment agreement with the Province, within fifteen years. So, if there is a settlement between the Province and the Government of Canada with the Innu or with some other group - if the LMN, for example, is deemed to have a claim. If there is a settlement that is more favourable with some other Aboriginal group from a tax perspective, than the legislation provides for an automatic reopening.

Mr. Speaker, there are no financial impacts of the Tax Treatment Agreement on the Province, none whatsoever. Most of the exemptions provided to the Inuit community government under the Tax Treatment Agreement are already available to them as municipalities. Also, income tax exemptions provided to the Nunatsiavut government under the Tax Treatment Agreement are generally available to public bodies performing a function of government.

Mr. Speaker, the Nunatsiavut government and the Inuit community governments are exempt from federal and provincial income tax by virtue of being deemed to be public bodies, similar to municipalities that are performing a function of government. The Labrador Inuit, as members know, definitively endorsed this agreement last May. More than 76 per cent of eligible voters supported the agreement, with over an 85 per cent voter turnout. Authority to sign this agreement was granted in March. It has been signed already by all three parties, as I said, at the treaty signings in Nain last January.

Mr. Speaker, our government made a commitment not to accept or ignore the unequal socio-economic conditions of Aboriginal communities. Working with the Aboriginal leaders, we want to assist Aboriginal peoples in fulfilling their desire to become more self-reliant. The settlement of land claims is an important step toward the establishment of certainty and stability for the economic and social development of Labrador Inuit, the region of Labrador, and the Province as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all hon. members in the House to support this amendment to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement because it will enable us to take yet another significant step forward for the Labrador Inuit, our Province and our nation. I am very pleased to move second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise and have a few words with regard to Bill 28.

First of all, the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, we passed in the fall. I am not entirely sure why we are having amendments to this particular piece of legislation right now, but just to say a few words I guess. First of all, when the bill was passed in the fall, it was my understanding the bill was indeed brought before this House having been sanctioned by three particular parties, meaning the federal government, the Labrador Inuit government and the provincial government, and was not subject to amendment before the Legislature. I remember -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) unless all three agreed.

MS JONES: Unless all three had agreed, Mr. Speaker.

At that time I remember, quite clearly, raising a number of issues in the Legislature with regard to the Labrador Inuit Land Claim Agreement; not issues that would in any way change the fate of the actual agreement, that would not in any way diminish the intent of what the agreement was as it related to benefits, land transfers or anything of the sort to the Labrador Inuit people. In fact, I stated on that occasion, as I will state quite clearly now, that I am in full support of a land claim agreement for the Inuit people of Northern Labrador and have applauded the work that they have done, both their president, their board of directors, the leadership in the organization. I have talked to them on many occasions since the vote last fall. I have talked to them as they made their way through the transgression of moving into a transitional government process, a process in which they will see the full implementation of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Act and the Labrador Inuit government.

Mr. Speaker, I guess my concern today is at the time that the bill was brought before the House of Assembly to be voted on, enacted into law, I raised a number of issues. I made several amendments to the bill, several amendments that were voted down in the House of Assembly and by the government opposite because of the fact that it had to be a tripartite agreement between both the federal-provincial governments and the Inuit government. Mr. Speaker, at the time I was asked to take government's word for it, that it was certainly not government's intention to diminish the Land Claims Agreement of the Labrador Metis Nation, another Aboriginal group in Labrador, to take their word that this land claim and this act for the Inuit government would, in no way - in no way - impact, alter, or in any way stop the Labrador Metis Nation from achieving a full land claim in Labrador, in Newfoundland and Labrador, and in the country. Mr. Speaker, I was asked, at that time, to accept the word of the government that would the case: This is our intention. This is what we want to do. We want to protect the rights of Metis.

I guess I am a little bit surprised today to have amendments come forward in the bill, in the LIA bill, that do not reflect what my concerns were, and the concerns that were raised by the Metis people back several months ago. I can honestly say that I did take the commitment of the minister and the government very seriously. I took it so seriously, in fact, that I asked questions on it several times, that I insisted on the amendments in the legislation in order to have a record, a legal record of the House of Assembly, that would support and uphold the rights of another Inuit group in Labrador, the Labrador Metis.

Mr. Speaker, I did take the words of the minister and the government in all sincerity. I took them to be a full-fledged commitment of what the government's intentions were, and, I have to say, in light of the fact that today there are amendments coming forward under Bill 28 to amend the legislation, yet again it is failing to a deal with a critical issue, a very critical concern by a prominent Labrador Aboriginal group, the Labrador Metis Nation.

I will tell you what that concern was, Mr. Speaker, because I remember it quite clearly. It was the terminology that was used in the previous act and in the previous enacted legislation that referred to the land claim for the Labrador Inuit Association as one of the last Inuit-based claims in the Province and in Canada; one of the last Inuit-based claims in Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if that was to be taken as a statement within itself, what it would mean is that there is no other Aboriginal group left in this country that could form a land claim based on Inuit ancestry, and that would be incorrect. It would be factually incorrect, because we do have a group, a group of mixed-blood ancestry - that is mixed of the French, English and Aboriginal peoples who reside in Labrador - whose foundation for a land claim, which is presently submitted and before the federal government, is based on Inuit ancestry, Mr. Speaker. So, to have a piece of legislation enacted in this House that would say it is the last Inuit land claim in Canada could, in fact, Mr. Speaker - I am not saying that it will, but could - in essence, have an impact on legitimizing a future claim for Metis people, and that was my concern.

Mr. Speaker, I was assured by the government on a regular basis and commentary that it was not the intention of the government, it was not the intention of the minister, it was not the ruling or the intention of the Department of Justice provincially, to stop a land claim agreement for the Metis people, and in no way to railroad it, in no way to enact legislation that would not allow a full land claim for the Metis people to be facilitated and passed within the Government of Canada and enacted in law in this Legislature at some point if that were ever to happen.

I have to say today that I am disappointed that the amendments that have come forward do not reflect the legitimate concerns, the legitimate views, as I had understood, Mr. Speaker, were also very well received and taken by the minister and his government, but I am sad to say that those are not reflected in the amendments to the legislation and I would like to see them reflected in the amendments to the legislation. I do realize that they do require tripartite consent but I would suggest to the government that if tripartite consent can be sought in the last three to four months to other pieces of the legislation, to have it repealed and to have additions made, I would certainly ask that the same be done in light of ensuring, Mr. Speaker, that the rights of the Labrador Metis people are upheld and that the legitimacy of their rights are constituted and not impacted or affected by any legislation that we are to pass here with regard to the Labrador Inuit land claim. I wanted to point that out.

As I said again, Mr. Speaker, it has nothing to do with denying a land claim for the Inuit people of Northern Labrador. It is a claim that is well deserved, has been worked on for a long time, one that is being celebrated, one that is in transition mode as we speak, as they form their transitional government to move into the next phases, and I certainly applaud them and congratulate them on that. I certainly understand that having tax agreements as part of that is a very, very important component, I am sure, to the LIA, and it certainly needed to be amended to include that. I just would have liked to see the appropriate amendments to give greater clarity and legitimacy to the Labrador Metis claim as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak to Bill 28. Certainly, for the Labrador Inuit Association, Mr. Speaker, they hope this is the final piece that will come through the House of Assembly, as thirty years of waiting will be finalized.

Mr. Speaker, I talked with the Labrador Inuit Association as lately as an hour ago and they are certainly well aware of the amendments that are being put forward. I was part of the government that negotiated the deal with the Labrador Inuit Association, and the concern that was raised by my colleague, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, certainly is a concern that the Métis people have.

Mr. Speaker, there was a commitment made by myself, as the member for the North Coast of Labrador, there was a commitment made by the Inuit, that if the federal government recognized the Métis with a status for land claims that the Labrador Inuit Association would enter into a overlap agreement. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the provincial government also gave their word that should the Métis nation be awarded status to enter into a land claims agreement, then the government of the day would begin that process.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people in my riding, certainly we support Bill 28. As I said, we hope it is the last one we will see come forward. The only thing left will be the passing of the land claims through the federal government. Certainly, we hope that the federal government will do what the provincial government did in bringing it before the House and putting it through in the spirit of true negotiation. Mr. Speaker, for the other aboriginal groups, for the concerns that are raised, again we have agreed, the Labrador Inuit Association and the provincial government, that should the Labrador Métis nation be recognized with the status to negotiate the land claims deal, then the Labrador Inuit Association will enter into an overlap agreement. Mr. Speaker, I have every reason to believe they are honest and true to their word.

Mr. Speaker, today I fully support Bill 28.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say a few words about Bill 28, which revises the implementation legislation as put to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. I support the changes, Mr. Speaker. It is a very complex piece of legislation involving many, many departments and many pieces of legislation and many acts. It would seem to me, however, that taxation is something that one would have expected to come up in the discussions in negotiations. I am a little bit surprised that this has to be changed at this date. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, we can understand how something might need to be amended or adjusted in order to fully implement the spirit of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement.

I certainly support that, Mr. Speaker, although I do wonder about two things. Number one, there would seem to be a commitment that the federal government would pass this legislation, with respect to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, at a very early date. There was some talk of it being done in January or February, there was other talk of it being done in March or April. I do not know where that stands. Maybe the minister can enlighten us as to what the intentions of the Government of Canada are. I recognize that there are some uncertainties in the Parliament of Canada as of recent days, but what has caused the delay for it not being actually put in place to date? I want to ask that question as part of my concerns about this matter going forward.

I was in Labrador, in Nain, for the formal signing of the final agreement. It was a great pleasure to be there, to see the hope and expectations of the Labrador Inuit as to their future under the new agreement and the form of self-government that has been agreed to by this Province and the Government of Canada.

I do want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I share some of the concerns addressed by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, because I know when the issue of the Labrador Metis was raised in this House, albeit in the last week or so before the scheduled passage of the legislation, those concerns were raised and we were told at the time that this is not something that could be easily amended, that the parties had gone through a process and this was it. This was the final agreement. Other than the assurances that were given by the minister in this House that they had no intention of using the agreement to defeat a Labrador Metis claim for recognition, for status and for whatever land claims that might go with that, we had that assurance from the minister. There appears that there were opportunities to change the legislation because, obviously, we have one here. I wonder whether the minister can address that in his final response to this legislation?

Although we support the legislation, it does beg the question as to what efforts were made to seek something in the legislation that would assure and bring some comfort to the Labrador Metis Nation that, in fact, their claims were not being affected by the legislation and by the form of legislation that had been agreed upon. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if you can change legislation that has been passed, based on a treaty in relation to taxation, as the minister is proposing to do, and we have no objection to that, than surely those other kinds of changes could have pursued and possibly brought in, together with this piece of legislation that we have here today.

Despite the fact that it was brought to my attention fairly late in the day, I do, at least, share the fact that there is a legitimate reason to be concerned by the Labrador Metis Nation, and that reason to be concerned could have been addressed by a small amendment to the legislation itself. If the minister is saying the parties would not agree to that, then maybe we do have a problem, Mr. Speaker. Maybe there is some hope or expectation or thought that the Labrador Metis claims will be defeated by this legislation or by the consequence of it. I hope that the minister is able to give the same kind of assurances to the House here today as he did last December when this legislation was being passed by all parties in one day as part of what was thought to be a non-controversial acknowledgment that finally, after thirty years, the LIA claim had been dealt with on a fair and reasonable basis, and that we could all celebrate the implementation of the Implementation Act and the agreement. Here we are now, six months later, dealing with one problem that resulted from that. If we could deal with that, I say, why are we not dealing with the legitimate concern raised by the LMN last fall over the implementation of the legislation?

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Minister of Transportation and Works to deal with that in his closing remarks. The legislation itself, we have no problem supporting.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs speaks now he will close the debate at second reading.

The hon. the minister.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, let me thank my colleagues from the other side of the House for their remarks and comments on this bill. There are a couple of matters that were raised that I would certainly like to address.

Why the amendment? First of all, Mr. Speaker, we did not have the authority to sign the Tax Treatment Agreement at the time that the bill was ready to come before the House of Assembly. We did not think there was any need to delay the passage of the main bill; that the Tax Treatment Agreement could be done by way of an amendment if all parties agreed, as we are doing here today. The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, was that all parties did, in fact, agree - the Government of Canada, the LIA and the Province - that we would do the Tax Treatment Agreement by way of an amendment to the legislation.

In terms of the LMN, Mr. Speaker, the position that I articulated on behalf of the government when we passed the treaty in December is the same position today. The LIA informed us, the Labrador Inuit Association informed us - actually, they informed us on the floor of the Legislature here as a result of a discussion between the Member for Torngat Mountains and the Board of the LIA last December - that they did not support the amendment proposed to the agreement on behalf of the LMN. They told us that they did not support it. They believe that part two-ten of the treaty, as is currently written, it is their view that it protects the right of any other Aboriginal group in Labrador and that to proceed with a claim - if, in fact, a claim is recognized - that they would not and they are not supportive of amending the legislation in that, as far as that goes, to affect the amendment as proposed by the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

We felt, as a government, and the Government of Canada feels, as a government, the Department of Justice of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Department of Justice for the Government of Canada, agree with the interpretation of the legislation as proposed by the LIA. We don't think there is anything in this treaty that would be detrimental to any other Aboriginal group in Labrador.

The problem with the LMN is this, the Government of Canada has not said: Yes, you have a claim, or no, you don't have a claim. That is the first step in the process. The Government of Canada has to say: We accept that you have the basis of a claim. The day that the Government of Canada says that, then all parties can begin the negotiation process. For this group, for the LIA, that process took thirty years. I hope to God it will not take that for any other group, but it took thirty years. The first step in the process is the Government of Canada has to make the determination that there is a potential claim that is eligible here, then we can get on with it. Once we get that behind us, there is nothing left to impede the process.

The other question asked by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi was: Where is this now in terms of the Government of Canada and getting the legislation before the Parliament of Canada? I can only tell the hon. member that in the CBC Labrador morning show on May 11, just a few days ago, the Prime Minister stated that the legislation would be before the House in: a few weeks. However, he did make a comment on the minority status of his government, and that he cannot control the legislative agenda as if he had a majority. Well, we understand that, but he did use the words: in a few weeks. I do not know if that is wishful thinking, unclear thinking, or any kind of thinking, but those were the hon. the Prime Minister's words.

With that, I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 28, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act. ( Bill 28)

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Later in the day.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. ( Bill 28)

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

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

Order 14, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act. ( Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act." ( Bill 31)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation is obviously a companion piece to what my colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs, just discussed in Bill 28. It is essentially one of the many consequential, I guess, amendments to provincial legislation that will be made, and are ongoing being made, as a result of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, this essentially deals with the Atlantic Accord Acts, both provincially and federally, and the main reason why this was not introduced in December - because both the Atlantic Accord Implementation Acts and the preambles and titles with the federal-provincial legislation, it requires that both levels of government must be in agreement that this be brought forward.

Prior to (inaudible) that was not the case, Mr. Speaker, or, prior to this point in time, when we introduced the main body of the legislation respecting this agreement, this approval had not been given. Essentially, Mr. Speaker, that approval has now been given through both levels of government, and essentially what it will deal with: it includes rights and benefits for Labrador Inuit with respect to the exploration and development of oil and gas in the offshore portion of the Labrador Inuit settlement area referred to as the zone extending offshore twelve miles and, to a lesser extent - I want to emphasize that - in the waters adjacent to the zone to the 200-mile limit.

The Labrador Inuit rights in the zone include the right to be consulted before permits and authorizations with respect to exploration and the development of oil and gas are moving forward; notifications, essentially, Mr. Speaker, in bringing issues related to the agreement and the waters adjacent to any potential development, or permitting or authorizations that government may wish to enter into.

Again, this is a very consequential amendment resulting from the main legislation that we passed in December of last year, bringing it forward now with the compliance of the federal government and in the context of the spirit and intent as outlined by my colleague so aptly with respect to bringing into force and effect all aspects of this agreement.

With that, I will conclude my opening comments on second reading and certainly will be willing to answer any questions that members opposite may have.

Thank you.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We certainly will not belabour the point. We appreciate the need for this piece of legislation, the fact that it is a companion piece to what the Minister of Transportation and Works just dealt with, and we would certainly be in favour of this piece of legislation.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to also indicate our support for this legislation. It clearly recognizes that the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement has precedence over this act, as it does over most pieces of legislation in the Province where there is an overlap. We are concerned to ensure that the self-government provisions of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement are fully effective and give them a sufficient say in those types of activities coming under the Atlantic Accord Implementation agreement.

While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to query whether or not the new agreement made with Ottawa requires any changes to our legislation, and are we going to see legislation in relation to the Atlantic Accord Implementation Act as a result of negotiations with the Prime Minister?

There is a lot of concern in this Province, Mr. Speaker, as to what the fate of the agreement made by the government is, under the current uncertainty in Ottawa. We have various types of promises being made by individual Members of Parliament as to what exactly might happen in the event of various scenarios after a potential defeat of the Government of Canada. Our own position is the same as that of the Premier, in that we believe that the Budget should be passed, that the agreement should somehow be sealed. In fact, our party in Ottawa seconded a motion that, unfortunately, required unanimous consent, to see the Atlantic Accord aspects of the Budget Implementation Act in Ottawa passed immediately. Unfortunately, the Bloc Quebeçois, at that time, on that occasion, denied leave for unanimous consent.

In view of the uncertainty that surrounds what might happen afterwards, I do not know if a Conservative minority government, with the support of the Bloc Quebeçois, could ever see this passed, but we do have some concerns about this. I want to know whether or not, first of all: Is there an expectation that the arrangement made with Ottawa would require changes to our legislation here, and is there any plan to have that forthcoming, or is that also up in the air pending acceptance by the Parliament of Canada of the new agreement that was made by the Province with Ottawa?

I recognize, of course, that this is a government-to-government agreement that was made by the Newfoundland and Labrador Government with Ottawa. I would certainly hope that it would be honoured and passed by any government in Ottawa, but obviously our concerns are - along with many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - that this be done now, while the opportunity is there to do that, rather than throw our lot in with the uncertainties of a federal election.

Maybe the minister has some comments on it, if he can let us know whether or not our own Atlantic Accord Implementation Act has to be further changed to accommodate the deal that was made with the Government of Canada, and whether he has anything to say about how soon we might see changes that might be required in order to ensure that the new arrangements of the Atlantic Accord will, in fact, get implemented.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[Technical difficulties] with respect to this particular bill at second reading, understanding the importance and significance of the two issues that are linked in this piece of legislation as I understand it, one being, of course, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and, as well, its tie-in to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, which was done in the previous piece of legislation as well, and understanding that the general principle that is in the Land Claims Agreement is that any and all pieces of legislation in all other departments need to have a piece that says it does not conflict with the arrangement that has been agreed to with respect to the Inuit of Labrador.

The comments that I wanted to make are not with respect to that part of it, Mr. Speaker, which I concur and agree with, and understand that the government is doing the right thing in making sure that there is no conflict that ties in. It is just that today, and again outside the Legislature in particular, there seems to be a growing amount of concern being expressed by our Premier on behalf of the government about a potential vote in the nation's capital on Thursday of this week, and whether or not the federal Budget is going to succeed; and, of course, that itself contains the Atlantic Accord provision that was negotiated some time ago and signed with great anticipation and great celebration in Newfoundland and Labrador on Valentine's Day. I was there myself, and I recall the sense of accomplishment and the fact that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were proud to see that occur after too long a period of time of negotiation and difficulty because it should have been much more straightforward than that. A promise was made by the Prime Minister of Canada during an election. It should have been just a matter of getting together and keeping the promise, rather than sort of being dragged into it. Now, the irony that I see in it though was that our Premier, himself, has been somewhat inconsistent in terms of whether or not we should be concerned this Thursday.

I will just make these couple of points, Mr. Speaker, and I will not belabour it. A couple of weeks ago, in speaking to the Board of Trade, I think it was, or the Rotary here in the capital city, the Premier was saying: It doesn't really matter - there could be a little time slippage. It doesn't really matter if the Government of Canada falls or not - because they had letters from Mr. Harper already in writing, saying: We are going to live to that Accord even if the government changes. The polls at the time, federally, were suggesting that the Liberals were behind, the federal Conservatives were ahead, that there might be a confidence vote lost in the House of Commons, and our Premier - this is only a couple of weeks ago - was giving assurances to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that there is nothing to be concerned about, because even if the government changes, I already got it covered off. I already have the letter from Mr. Harper. I think he said he had a letter again from Mr. Layton, who is the head of the NDP, saying that even if there is a federal election, right after the election we will pass the Accord. Not only that, because the disagreement with the Government of Canada, at that point in time, was the fact that it was wrongly included in the Budget in the first place.

Why didn't we have a stand-alone piece of legislation going forward in Ottawa? That was the position being taken by Mr. Hearn as an MP, by Mr. Doyle as an MP, by the federal Conservatives. All of a sudden that position isn't any good anymore, according to the Premier. He does not agree with that anymore. Now he is out there chastising Mr. Hearn, who used to be his friend up to a couple of weeks ago, saying: That's no good! This having a separate piece of legislation. We don't want to run any risk of losing the Accord. We want you to break ranks with your party and with your leader, and vote for the Budget. Now he is saying: Because it is for Newfoundland and Labrador, it is okay to vote against your leader and your party because it is for the benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador. Whereas only two short weeks ago he was saying: It does not really, we have it covered off anyway.

One other thing, interesting enough, Mr. Speaker. The Premier suggested to the media, following that speech here in St. John's as well, that if Mr. Harper became the Prime Minister he might look forward to actually going back and getting a few improvements to the Atlantic Accord. Does anybody remember that? They do remember that, Mr. Speaker. I am glad to see that they do remember that.

Here was the prospect two weeks ago: Nothing to worry about if the Budget fails; nothing to worry about if the government changes, I have it all under control. Not only that, if Mr. Harper becomes the Prime Minister, I might even be able to improve the Atlantic Accord that we signed with the Liberals back on February 14, Valentine's Day, right here in the Capital City of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, what is it that has changed? I do not know what has changed from that point of view to now, but it changed very dramatically because our Premier was outside the doors of the Legislature again today speaking to the media - which will probably be on the evening news again - saying that he is very upset and very disappointed that Mr. Hearn, as a federal MP, and Mr. Doyle, as a federal MP, might be going to vote with their leader, might be going to vote with Mr. Harper and might not be going to vote for Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is a problem.

The other irony of it, that is not lost on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, is that it was only a week ago that he had a member in his own caucus who broke ranks with the party that he leads and that was not acceptable. That was not okay for any reason. He was expelled. He was ousted. I guess Mr. Harper, obviously, is not allowed to act like our Premier because if the two gentlemen who represent Newfoundland and Labrador as federal Conservatives, vote against their leader and vote for the Budget, which is now the new position today of our Premier, then if Mr. Harper is going to take the same standard as our Premier took, then those two gentlemen, I guess, will sit as Independents next week because they will be kicked out of that party.

There are people that are, at least, asking these questions. I do not belabour the point with respect to the piece of legislation because it is the right thing to do, but I think it is worth a few minutes to wonder: What is it that changed in the mind of our Premier? What is it that changed in the circumstance? That two weeks ago it was okay for the federal government to be defeated. There was no reason to panic. It might take a little while but right after the election - by the way, I understand, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Hearn, as a federal MP, that is what he is still saying publicly, that it is not an issue that anybody need get upset or concerned over because if we topple the federal government and if we have an election, and if we form the government, we are going to take the Atlantic Accord out of the Budget and pass it immediately. The Premier finds something wrong with that all of a sudden, when only two weeks ago he was saying that will be fine. I guess the big question is: What is it that has changed?

For me, personally, I believe fully that we need not risk anything. This is taking too long as it is. I do not think that the Government of Canada should have put it in the Budget, Mr. Speaker. I do not think they should have put it in the Budget at all. I think it was important enough to be a stand-alone piece of legislation.

Maybe our Premier did not do such a great job of finishing the negotiation in any event, because when we asked the question about it in this Legislature, on the first day that this Legislature opened, on March 14, we said: Well, we got the deal done. It was signed there a month ago, but we do not have the money yet. He said: Well, the Minister of Finance is not here because I told him to stay behind, up in Ottawa, and bring home the cheque.

I guess he would have some hotel bill racked up now, because there is no cheque anywhere close as we speak today, because he was trying to suggest: Oh, you people do not know what you are doing. I have this all under control. I am back here celebrating with the people of the Province and the Finance Minister is still up in Ottawa because he is getting the cheque signed so he can bring home the $2 billion tomorrow.

Well, here we are a couple of months later and now he is asking federal Conservative MPs to break ranks with their own party when his standard is, if you break ranks with your own party you get booted out. So, he wants Mr. Doyle and Mr. Hearn to get booted out of the Conservative Party of Canada, which is a complete and total about-face from a couple of weeks ago.

In the meantime, I believe that the federal Liberals should have had - and had it been in the negotiation, if the negotiation had been a stow and complete, as we would be led to believe that it is, then there would have been a provision that said, not only is this now done but it will be a stand-alone piece of legislation, signed, sealed and delivered, and it will not be tied into other political issues, and it will be not be wrapped up into a Budget to try to bring political pressure to bear on other members to vote a certain way. It should have been a stand-alone piece of legislation, and shame on my federal Liberal cousins for playing politics with it by putting it into the Budget.

Now, I guess, it is a little too late for that. It is in the Budget. There is a Budget vote in two or three days' time and I think, in the best interests of Newfoundland and Labrador, every federal MP should vote for Newfoundland and Labrador, just like Mr. Scott Simms did when he voted for Newfoundland and Labrador against his own party.

By the way, a strange thing, he is still in the Liberal caucus. He did not get kicked out. The same thing Mr. Bill Matthews did when he voted for Newfoundland and Labrador against the wishes of his leader, the Prime Minister of the country. Did he get kicked out of the Liberal Party? No, he did not, because Liberals do not operate that way. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that many Conservatives do not operate that way either. I would suggest that if Mr. Doyle and Mr. Hearn voted against their leader on Thursday, and voted for Newfoundland and Labrador, that they would be allowed to stay in the federal Conservative caucus, unlike Progressive Conservatives in Newfoundland and Labrador who, if they utter a word against what the Premier wants, get their seats nailed down on the other side of the floor, banished forever and a day.

We saw it last week in a vote, a free vote, a great free vote with respect to the crab issue and the resource material sharing system, in which, strangely enough, not a dissenting voice, every single one of them have come to the same conclusion - except, of course, the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, who had some concerns for his constituents and now has his seat nailed down on the opposite side of the House, as far away as you can get from the Conservative caucus and the Conservative Party as is physically and humanly possible inside this Legislature. I just make those few comments, Mr. Speaker.

The bill itself is the right bill. The issue, though, raises a lot of questions in terms of the Atlantic Accord and what will happen this week, and double standards, I would suggest, very much, very clear double standards, and changing of positions by our Premier on behalf of the government as he sort of puts his finger up in the wind and goes by the seat of his pants in terms of, what will I do next? What will my position be this week? What will my position be next week? I wonder if I am on side with this? I wonder if I am against it?

There is no consistency, because it is not driven by any principle or any real basis. It is just driven by political whim and fancy, and what the Premier thinks will put him in the good view and good stead of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in any one day.

I commend the government for bringing forth the piece of legislation. I just wish we could get a little more consistency out of the Premier in terms to his approach to these very significant issues both locally and on the federal scene.

Thank you for the opportunity again, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I was reluctant to rise on a point with relevance because, while the matters that the Leader of the Opposition have raised are important matters with respect to the future of the negotiated new arrangement on the 100 per cent being given to the Province, they are of critical importance and important matters today in the Province. With respect to that -

AN HON. MEMBER: ( Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I listened to everybody. I didn't interrupt. I am about to get to the questions that were asked by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

Irrespective of that arrangement, the legislation that we are amending now puts it in compliance with the agreement that was signed. So, irrespective of what occurs on that front, this piece of legislation that we are dealing with deals with the ratification of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement and the associated inconsequential amendments, essentially, as I talked about earlier, that need to be made with respect to acts of this House. All those are important, and members can say they are relevant, in the context of a general discussion on the Atlantic Accord. With respect to this piece of legislation, amending the Atlantic Accord Act Implementation Act, to have it in compliance with the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement is important and critical, but it is irrespective and separate from the debate that is occurring generally on the Atlantic Accord today.

I hope I have answered those questions, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the opportunity to close the debate, and look forward to further commentary, potentially, in Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act, Bill 31.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Later in the day.

MR. SPEAKER: Later in the day.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 31)

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

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

I move second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Law Society Act, Bill 30.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 30, Order 13, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999." (Bill 30)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am certainly pleased this afternoon to introduce Bill 30, "An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999. This is an amendment that has been requested by members of the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador, as it will permit lawyers to establish professional law corporations.

The Law Society of Newfoundland was incorporated in 1834. It is the regulatory body of the legal profession in this Province and it is governed by a group of individuals knows as benchers. There are twenty-one benchers. All work to protect the public interest. I know that the emphasis of benchers is to protect the public interest, not to protect the interests of lawyers, but to protect the public interest in the delivery of quality legal services.

In the fall of 2004 benchers requested four amendments to the act that regulates lawyers in the Province, the Law Society Act of 1999. They were: First of all, to permit benchers to make rules respecting the admission of students at law and the enrollment of members of the Law Society. This change was necessary for the Law Society to participate fully in national mobility accords that permit lawyers to travel to other jurisdictions for the purposes of practicing law. Secondly, the amendment was to provide for the disposition of unclaimed trust account monies. This amendment would take all unclaimed trust monies from lawyers accounts and consolidate them into one account to be held by the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador. These unclaimed trust funds are an administrative burden to lawyers. Thirdly, the requirement was to make minor housekeeping amendments, including the elimination of the requirement of a lay bencher to attend a call to the bar. Finally, to permit lawyers to establish professional law corporations.

In the fall of 2004, all of the requested amendments were made to the Act except, because of time constraints at the time, the ability for lawyers to establish professional law corporations. Mr. Speaker, the benchers requested this ability to establish professional law corporation because they attract certain tax and income management advantages such as the small business tax deduction, which will allow for greater tax planning opportunities for lawyers. Professional law incorporation would confirm any of the same tax and non-tax advantages that are already enjoyed by members of other professions, such as dentists and medical doctors, in the Province.

In addition, this amendment to the Law Society Act of 1999 is consistent with many other jurisdictions in Canada and is long overdue here in this Province. The lawyers in British Columbia, in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Quebec, Alberta and Ontario currently all have the authority to establish such professional law corporations, and consequently enjoy the corresponding tax benefits.

It was previously mentioned in recent sessions that this House has passed legislation that allows such groups as doctors and dentists and optometrists practicing in this Province to establish professional corporations. The amendments to the Law Society Act largely mirror the legislation passed respecting these other professions. With provisions of this legislation currently before the House, the difference merely reflects the differences in the needs of lawyers.

The Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador will be responsible for the licensing of professional law corporations. Allowing lawyers to incorporate and engage in the practice of law through a professional corporation does not affect the professional liability of the shareholder members. These members are jointly and individually liable, along with the corporation, for all professional liability claims against the professional law corporation. In other words, the protection of the public is not compromised - and this is very important - the protection of the public will not be compromised by permitting lawyers to establish and engage in the practice of law through professional law corporations.

Mr. Speaker, this change will be a positive one and is widely supported within the legal community.

I thank you for this opportunity to discuss this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I ask for the support of all hon. members in passing this amendment. I look forward to the participation from members on both sides of the House in this debate.

Thank you.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few brief comments. I certainly have no difficulty with the basic principles of Bill 30. Some of the things, for example a discipline proceeding, is certainly needed and necessary.

The unclaimed trust funds: There have been lot of cases in this Province where people for various reasons have died, or passed on, or left the jurisdiction, and funds end up left in lawyers' trust accounts and can be there for years and years and years, and technically there is no way to get rid of them. The lawyers do not want them, in the sense they cannot use them. They are not supposed to use them or touch them, yet your accountant for years on end sometimes has to justify, through paperwork, why they are still sitting in your trust account. This provides a mechanism whereby these unclaimed trust funds can be taken out of the lawyer's account, turned over to the Law Society, and used for whatever purposes the Law Society deems to be appropriate. That is certainly necessary.

The mobility issue is certainly needed, stepping us, I guess, into the modern ago of law firms in Canada. This is not blazing any trails, I should say. We are probably the last Law Society in Canada, I guess, to have professional law corporations. That is my understanding. I certainly would not want to be taken to be in conflict here, being a practicing member of the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador and to be speaking to this bill. I would not want someone to suggest that I might be in violation of the House of Assembly Act for being in conflict. As I understand, the legislation being geared towards a class of people, I certainly would be exempted upon that ground and be permitted to speak to it.

Again, I believe this was intended to be brought before the House last fall. It had to have some cleanup before it was actually brought here, and again, it is bringing the profession into the modern age. Most professionals in the country today have the professional law corporations available to them as an accounting procedure and as a tax provision. Lawyers in Newfoundland, for whatever reason, it has always been deemed that we did not have it. I think most often it was an issue of what happens to the lawyers' responsibility or potential liability to the clients. If you allow them to be incorporated, would they be able to be sued, for example, if you broke your ethical responsibilities to your clients. I think that finally we have reached the point where we know that albeit you may have a professional law corporation for the purpose of doing your accounting and doing your taxation, you are still subject to all the rules of the Law Society when it comes to being in good standing and abiding by the Code of Ethics. Do not confuse the ethics piece with the fact that you can structure your accounting fees to maximize any benefits you might be entitled to under the income tax system.

I am sure we have some people, probably even amongst our own caucus here, who disagree that lawyers should maximize their tax benefits, but I assure you that it is not uncommon in most the professions that I am aware of in Canada today.

It is good to see that we are, indeed, stepping into reality and catching up with most other professions in Canada today. This member, at least, will certainly be supportive of this piece of legislation.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say a few brief words about An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, and in doing so I will just reiterate what my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, has said, because he, along with myself and the Minister of Justice, are also members of the Law Society. Some people might think that speaking on this legislation - as well as the other Cabinet minister who participated in approving this legislation along with the Premier, but there is no prohibition in the House of Assembly Act for members actively being involved in legislation that affects them as a member of a profession or a member of a class. Lest anybody be concerned about that, that is not a conflict of interest because we are talking about -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

For the benefit of all members, the Chair would recognize that there are members of the legal profession who are members of the House of Assembly. What we are discussing here is a piece of legislation that is common to a class of people and the Chair would not deem any member of this House who is a member of the legal profession to be in any conflict of interest in discussing this particular piece of legislation.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for clarifying that.

There is an important provision in this piece of legislation. I think the minister reflected on it briefly. Clause 3 provides that the Law Society, the benchers of the Law Society, which is the board of directors, I guess, are given the power here to ensure that they may, in fact, levy upon all members of the Law Society a particular assessment, or an additional assessment, or special assessment, to ensure that the Law Society has funds sufficient to reimburse persons who lose money because of any action of any member of the Law Society, or money entrusted to their care, which is kind of unusual. Basically, Mr. Speaker, the Law Society says to the public that if any member of this organization defrauds you, or takes your money, the Law Society will pay that money back. So, in a sense of protection of the public, this is a very astringent rule. What it says is that not only will the individual get their money back, but that the Law Society benchers are given the power to, if the amount is greater than available funds, levy a special assessment upon all members of the Law Society to kick into a fund to compensate and reimburse people who may have lost money because some member of the Society defrauded them.

Now, that is a pretty broad statement and a pretty broad power but it is also a reflection upon how concerned, I think, the members of the legal profession are to ensure that the public has confidence in the profession and in what they do. Obviously, no group of people is perfect, Mr. Speaker, and the public is aware of certain matters that have happened recently involving a member of the law profession where some significant losses have occurred and the profession is busy now grappling with the consequences of that and trying to ensure that no member of the public loses out as a result of someone being defrauded by a member of the Law Society.

Insurance will cover a certain percentage and a certain amount of things but there is, above and beyond that, a significant amount of money which the members of the Law Society themselves have to come up with in order to meet whatever legitimate claims there are from members of the public who have lost money as a result of misappropriation or conversion of funds, or any other losses that may have taken place based on money entrusted to or received by a member of the Law Society. So, I think that is a very positive step to ensure that protection continues.

I will just say a few words on the other issue. The major issue in this bill is to allow lawyers to incorporate, to set up a professional corporation. I have not been involved in the debates in this Province about that issue, Mr. Speaker, but I know it is quite common across the country. In fact, when I was studying law in Alberta, in the 1970s, professional corporations were permitted in Alberta going back, say, thirty years. It has taken us a little time to catch up with some of these ideas and have the ideas gain favour.

I understand that there are certain advantages, from a tax point of view, if a lawyer can spread income over more than one year. If it happens to be a big year or a small year, I suppose, you could spread your income out over two years and have a more reasonable tax bill. The House of Assembly has passed similar legislation for dentists, for accountants, for optometrists and others, and I do not see any reason in principle why lawyers could not benefit from this as well.

As I say, although I have not been involved in this debate within the legal profession, I certainly do not see any reason why this Province should not have that kind of provision available for lawyers as it is for doctors, dentists, accountants, optometrists, and there may be others, I don't know. The Minister of Justice would certainly have a list over there, with his briefing notes, but I have no problem with this legislation. I think, on the one hand, there are a lot of housekeeping things plus beneficial measures for the public, plus something that brings our act in line with the other legal professions acts across the country and should provide certainly some benefits to lawyers in allowing them to regulate their affairs in the same way that their colleagues across the country do.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

I just want to say that I appreciate the comments made by the hon. Member for Burgeo & LaPoile and the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and I appreciate the comments that you made, Mr. Speaker, in pointing out that the members of this House who may, in fact, also be members of the Law Society are not in a conflict of interest in taking part in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I know there are at least four members of this House who are members of the Law Society.

AN HON. MEMBER: Five.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Five?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Health.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services who, unfortunately, is not here, is also a distinguished member of the Law Society.

I know - I have to say this - it has always been my experience that most teachers I have met in my lifetime would like to be lawyers, and I can also point out that most lawyers I have met want to be teachers. I can certainly say that I can see some hon. members on both sides of the House -

MR. RIDEOUT: I was both.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Pardon?

MR. RIDEOUT: I was both.

MR. T. MARSHALL: The Minister of Transportation and Works quite correctly points out that he was both, and that is why he is held in such high esteem by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador - all of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: A tax break for lawyers, that is all it is.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I don't know if it is a tax break for lawyers. It allows lawyers to have the same laws apply to them as apply right across the country, and I do not know how many lawyers in this country will actually save taxes as a result of this. Maybe some will. I would suspect the majority may not.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to move second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999. (Bill 30)

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Later in the day.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend the Law Society Act, 1999," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 30)

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Order 12, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The Municipal Elections Act. (Bill 29)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The Municipal Elections Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The Municipal Elections Act." (Bill 29)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make a few comments on Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The Municipal Elections Act.

Mr. Speaker, there is a good reason that this bill is before the House now. I had some discussions with my hon. critic. The current Municipalities Act stipulates that if a councillor is in arrears at the end of a year, he or she is automatically removed from council. What this bill intends to do is correct that and give - I suppose, if you consider it to be an error or a mistake, but correct that situation and require that the Town Clerk or Town Manager would give a sitting councillor a notice of thirty days prior to the end of the taxation year and not more than forty days. It could not be given five or six months in advance.

Oftentimes, we have councillors, for any given reason, I suppose - he could be out of the Province or whatever the case may be - who forget or neglect to pay their taxes. This would correct that error, Mr. Speaker, and would also give them a grace period, that after the date is set

they would have thirty days to come up with their taxes. Mr. Speaker, there have been councillors removed from council over the past number of years because of that situation and that regulation within the Municipalities Act, and we are hoping to correct that.

Also, in the Municipalities Act, councillors who have been removed cannot offer themselves up for re-election for two years. This legislation now, if you had someone who was removed, say, three years ago, they could run in the upcoming election of September 27. What this is doing - I believe there have been, Mr. Speaker, approximately two or three people in the past couple of years who have been removed from council because of this regulation, and this new bill would allow those individuals to offer themselves September 27 for re-election. I think, myself, that is a good thing, especially in light of the fact that we have now the Federation of Municipalities saying that as many, I think, as 60 per cent of the people may not re-offer for election. The more people we can have run for council, the better it would be. This would also correct that problem.

Also, this bill, Bill 29, would set a due date for the collection of taxes as a deadline, no later than June 30 of each given year. Some municipalities have it now further on than that. This would actually require that taxes be paid, certainly within the first six months, and that, in itself, probably would be a benefit to the municipalities because they could receive their taxes earlier in the year rather than some people waiting till November or December to pay their taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is probably a good thing. The Federation of Municipalities certainly supports it, from my information and discussions with the president over the past year and a half since I became minister.

With those few comments, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down. Someone on the other side may want to speak to it.

Thank you.

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no doubt about it, that these amendments that are here for this piece of legislation will give the person, who has been, I guess, in a council and have not paid their taxes, a little reprieve in the sense where it would not come so suddenly on them. What it means now is that the town clerk would have to notify, not more than forty and less than thirty days, that this particular councillor, mayor, or whomever it might be, owe taxes to that community. I think that is fair.

There were a couple of instances where people were asked to leave the councils because they did not have their taxes paid. The second part of it, I guess, gives them an extra bit of time, that after they have been notified there is an extra thirty days before they are asked to leave council. If a person who is running for office has been notified thirty days before and given another thirty days after, and the taxes are not paid, then really they should, in a sense, be asked to leave the council because they are setting a precedent for their own people in the community saying: Why should I pay taxes.

I think that will give the person who runs for council ample time to indicate that they owe the community taxes. I think 99.9 per cent of the time it does not happen anyhow, because people who are running for councils recognize that they have a responsibility to their towns and taxes are paid. If there are one, two, or three people who, for whatever reason, have not got it paid then I think this will give them every opportunity to do so and should not cause them any harm when they are asked to.

The other part, as the minister said, setting the tax rate date for June 30, that is important, because what happens in many instances now is, if the people do not pay until the end of the year it deprives the council of the money upfront and the interest that they could earn on these particular councils. Really, in a sense what you are doing is to benefit the municipality, and I can see why the Newfoundland Federation of Municipalities would concur with that, because it would benefit the members who they represent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say a few words on Bill 29. I say to the minister, that we don't have any great difficulty with the amendments as brought forward in this piece of legislation. I think the minister summed it up pretty well himself when he talked about the difficulty in getting people to run, under the present system, for municipal government. I think anything that can be done to encourage people to run for public office on the municipal level certainly needs to be encouraged. While it may not happen too often, it is more of a clean up nature that would put things on track for at least some people in the Province.

I would like to raise another matter, on the issue of municipalities, with the minister. I want to say to the minister, Mr. Speaker, that over the course of the last few months the minister has received a number of letters from municipalities in this Province asking for a vote, a referendum, on the VLTs and whether or not it is part of public policy that the public of this Province would like to see government continue on. I know that the President of the NLFM said that he wasn't in favour, but I know there are a number of mayors throughout the Province who did support that, and I have written the minister indicating that much to him.

Even the people, Mr. Speaker, some of the mayors of municipalities who have written the minister and talked about how they didn't want to see it in association with the municipal election, still supported the concept of having a referendum on that issue. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that would be a good thing for democracy in our Province, not just on this issue but on lots of issues that can determine public policy.

The provincial elections now are set, a specific date every four years, the second Tuesday in October. The municipal elections in this Province take place every four years, but in the alternating years, the even years, Mr. Speaker. It is halfway between the provincial elections. I think that is a good opportunity for government to capitalize on what the people of the Province are thinking, not only on their performance but on things they would like to see government become involved in, what direction they would like to see government take on issues that affect them.

It wouldn't be a system, Mr. Speaker, like in the US, where you see on the advertisements all the time, vote yes or no to proposition thirteen or seventeen or whatever, when, in fact, you do that you are deciding what the law will be. This can be used as a measure to gage whether or not government is governing in the manner that the people of the Province would like to see them govern. It can also be used as an important tool for government, because they can gage the public support on some of the public policy issues in the Province that they are passing here in the Legislature and take direction from that, either by going in the opposite direction or modifying or amending the view that government members may have.

So, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the minister should - and I know it will not be this session, but in the months to follow and next sessions of the Legislature, that this is something that the minister should look at. I think it would encourage more people to run for municipal elections if they felt they were having a bigger input into what is happening in the Province and setting the direction that government takes on their behalf.

I will just clue up by saying to the minister, I think it is not something that should be discarded unilaterally. I think it is something that is worth some investigation into, and maybe at another sitting of the Legislature it is something that the minister might want to consider.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs speaks now he will close debate at second reading.

The hon. the Minister.

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

I would like to thank the hon. members opposite for their comments on Bill 29. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is safe to say that both speakers support Bill 29.

To comment on the VLT point that the Member for Labrador West makes, I believe that is probably a discussion for another day, other than to say that there are 284 municipalities in the Province, over 200 local service districts, and the Federation of Municipalities has come out in opposing to having VLTs, or these types of questions on the ballots. I believe so far, and I stand to be corrected on this, but the last check I believe there was somewhere around - I think between twenty and thirty letters in from municipalities out of almost 500.

Mr. Speaker, with that - again, as I said, I believe there is support for this piece of legislation. The discussion on having questions on the ballots during municipal elections is a discussion for another day.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Is the pleasure of the House that Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The Municipal Elections Act be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK : A bill, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The Municipal Elections Act. ( Bill 29)

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Later in the day.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The Municipal Elections Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 29)

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

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

Order 10, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act. (Bill 27)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 27, Order 10, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act." (Bill 27)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the proposed amendments to the Insurance Companies Act.

We committed to streamlining regulation and simplifying the processes that government requires our businesses to follow. What we are bringing forward are minor administrative changes to update our requirements and achieve efficiencies in our operations. They merely reduce the regulatory requirements of the industry, with no impact on consumers or consumer protection issues.

This bill simply does three things. It eliminates the requirement by insurance companies regulated by another province to make security deposits. We are requiring these companies to place $100,000 to $200,000 on deposits provides little benefit to the companies customers in the event of a bankruptcy. All other provinces have already eliminated this requirement. The insurance industry has compensation funds in place to protect policyholders in the event of an insolvency of an insurance company. So this requirement is outdated and unnecessary.

The amendments eliminate the financial reporting requirement and regulation of insurance companies that are regulated elsewhere. This removes a duplication of effort. Consumers are not provided with greater protection through unnecessary duplication. It is a waste of staff time to monitor and regulate companies that are already regulated in another jurisdiction. We are confident in their regulatory and financial reporting requirements and we can exist this information if and when we want it. The information we are mainly interested in pertains to the activities of insurance companies when it comes to premiums collected and claims paid out within this Province. We will continue to require insurances companies to file this information with us and we will continue to be published annually by the superintendent so the public can monitor the status of the industry.

Finally, the amendments allows the superintendent to approve licences of companies regulated by another province as opposed to the minister. Under existing legislation, the superintendent issues a licence in this Province based on the licence issued by a federal regulator. All we are doing is extending that to include licences issued by other provincial regulators. The licencing requirements in the other provinces are similar, ensuring that consumers are protected and making the duplication unnecessary. What we are doing is reducing duplication and streamlining regulation to make business dealings with government less time-consuming. It also ensures the best possible use of staff resources for the protection of consumers in this Province.

Thank you, and I ask for your support in passing this bill today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will not belabour the point. We have had an opportunity to read the bill to amend the Insurance Companies Act. We concur that these housekeeping changes are certainly necessary and warranted, and we will be speaking here in favour and support the piece of legislation.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not going to speak at length on this legislation, but we have had a limited explanation from the minister here in the House. I would say that some of the clauses there cause me some concern.

Clause 6 repeals some twenty-something sections of the act, which eliminates the requirements that insurance companies place securities on deposit with the minister as a condition of the issuance of a licence and eliminates related provisions respecting the administration of the deposit. Part of that, of course, provides money available to people who have claims unpaid as a result of an insurance company going bankrupt.

Clause 7 of the bill amends a section of the act to limit the application of provincial winding up procedures to insurers incorporated under laws of the Province.

Now, the minister has stated categorically that there are no consumer issues involved. I have my doubt, in looking at clause 6 and 7 of the bill, and clauses 8, 9, 10, 11 also has to do with deposit. I have no confidence that these provisions will not affect the availability of insurance to the members. We have had cases of insurance companies go bankrupt in this Province and people still having claims outstanding against this government for failure to properly look after and regulate the insurance industry. So I do not know how quickly I am able to endorse this legislation at all. I think this is the kind of legislation that should be referred to a committee of this House. We did have a situation a few years ago. The legislation and the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly provide for referral of matters to a committee of this House for further study. This is just the type of legislation that a committee could examine a little bit more carefully than the kind of cursory comments that were made in the House here today.

I know the Official Opposition seems to think that there doesn't seem to be any problem with it, but I would like to know on what basis the minister can satisfy me, or the public in general, that removing of the deposit, no longer being available for anybody in the event of a problem of administration of an insurance licence - under the existing legislation there is a requirement that insurance companies place securities on deposit with the minister as a condition of the licence. That provides at least something for people to go against if the insurance company does go bankrupt. We do have that happen from time to time, Mr. Speaker. We have had it happen in the past number of years in Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not know how the minister can just say, quite blandly, this is a housekeeping type of legislation and all we are doing - there are no consumer issues involved. It affects a lot of people in this Province who are relying on insurance companies to get their claims paid in the event of a loss, and anything that diminishes that level of protection deserves to have very, very careful consideration.

This is legislation that was just tabled a couple of days ago. We would certainly like to see a more detailed study on that, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest that this legislation, in fact, be referred to one of the Standing Committees of the House, one of the Legislative Review Committees, have that committee meet and have the minister or her officials come and explain to the committee why it is that the removal of the provision in relation to a deposit somehow or other protects consumers better by not having a deposit. How is it that consumers are better protected when there is no deposit being made, no security for a deposit being filed with the minister in order to ensure at least some measure of protection for members of the public who are buying insurance contracts?

We know the insurance companies nationally are doing very well, $4.2 billion last year. They do not need protection. They do not need protection from this legislation. What the minister seems to be doing is making things a little bit easier for them, a little bit easier for the insurance companies, and what seems to me, on the surface, at least, Mr. Speaker, a little less protection for consumers.

I would like to know why the minister feels this is necessary. We are at second reading, we are dealing with a bill that there is no urgency in relation to it, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker. I did not get any sense of urgency from the minister and from the pace at which the legislation was brought forward. I would submit, and maybe the Government House Leader would be prepared to do this, that second reading, having been passed, if second reading goes through today, there is provision in our Standing Orders to refer this legislation to one of the two standing legislative committees for review, because I would certainly like to see a little bit more detail on this in terms of why it is - the minister says there are no consumer issues here - if that is case, we have provisions that take away what appears on the surface, at least, to be an important measure of protection for the consumers by having a deposit with the minister as a condition of the issuance of a licence, that certainly would provide some measure of protection, the minister is seeing fit here in this legislation to take it out and get rid of it altogether.

There may well be housekeeping issues here, but certainly that one seems to be one of some consequence and perhaps a legislative committee could review that. I know the minister is expecting to see a fair bit of legislation go through in this session, because we have seen new legislative acts today. In order to facilitate that kind of progress of legislation, something with some controversy such as this appears to have here perhaps should be referred to a legislative committee so that the minister's officials can provide a proper explanation as to why the deposit system is being gotten rid of, and what is the consequence to consumers. Is there an additional measure of protection being provided in some other way that I am not aware of?

Without that, Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of difficulty supporting this legislation without any confidence that, in fact, it is making things not just better for insurance companies but better for consumers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

The hon. the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, just in answer to the hon. member's questions, we do have protection in place for the consumers. Actually, it is a company that deals with protection of consumers in the event of a bankruptcy. They are called PACICC, Property and Casualty Insurance Compensation Corporation.

This is outdated legislation. We are the last Province to actually harmonize the legislation; there was duplication. The vast majority of our insurance companies are regulated federally, so it is undue duplication.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act. (Bill 27)

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Later in the day.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 27)

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

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

Order 6, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act. (Bill 19)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 19, Order 6, An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act." ( Bill 19)

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 19, An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act, essentially has three major components to the amendments, Mr. Speaker.

Firstly, I guess, it is primarily a housekeeping - not primarily. I should not say primarily, but there is a substantial housekeeping piece associated with this where we deal with the definition of aquaculture and make it more reflective of the United Nations definition of aquaculture.

Mr. Speaker, we have also changed some of the wording to clarify and make it consistent with other legislation in the Province: wording that deals with the minister, the department and people who are involved with the aquaculture industry, to make sure that, while the minister might change, or the name of the department might change, or the person or body or company that is on the aquaculture licence might change, that it is still applicable to all of those people as is required.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify issues such as when a licence suspension takes place, what the government and what the department can and cannot allow, or what the people who are involved in that site can and cannot do to be able to clean up that.

Mr. Speaker, there is also the issue that was raised by the Auditor General - and much of this comes from the Auditor General's report a couple of years back, where the department was told essentially that these issues had to be dealt with.

What we have done, Mr. Speaker, is give ourselves the authority in the act to set an expiry date for a licence. What we have had in the past is, you know, the licence expiring on December 31, for example. Because of year-end problems, trying to get all the information from the aquaculture operations, it has been difficult for the department to do a timely turnaround on new licences - on licence renewals, I should say. Now we propose, with these changes, with the changes that we have in front of us on the act today, to change our licencing year from January 1, December 31, to April 1, March 31, and that allows for, we believe, more timely, more responsive action by the department in turning around licences.

Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that any of that is not substantial, but the more substantial piece in this has to do with shore-fastened moorings. Some people probably remember, over the last number of years, there were a couple of people who were killed by travelling over ice and encountering shore-fastened moorings on aquaculture sites, mussel farms in particular. Not to understate the tragic nature of that, the Auditor General certainly took - not only the Auditor General, I think the Chief Medical Examiner raised the issue as well, if I am not mistaken. Anyway, while the department did try and regulate those shore-fastened moorings and require people who operated aquaculture sites to remove the shore-fastened moorings and moor the aquaculture operations under water, there was actually no legislative authority for the department to cause that to happen. While we and previous ministers and the department told people to do it, we had no authority to force them to do it. Right now, Mr. Speaker, with the amendments that are in front of us today we can now have, or we hope to have if this legislation passes, the legislative authority to set regulations to deal with issues like that. Certainly the tragic nature of that one causes everybody to reflect on what the Aquaculture Act says, and hopefully we can get the appropriate regulations put in place so that we can prevent those types of things from happening in the future.

As well, Mr. Speaker, there have been some instances in the past where people have abandoned aquaculture sites, abandoned mussel farms in particular, and there has been very little authority resting in the department to be able to cause those sites to be cleaned up and left in the state they would have been prior to the aquaculture development. Under the amendments that we propose here today we would also be able to deal with that.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of housekeeping issues here, but there are also a couple of very serious issues as it relates to the department's legislative authority to be able to cause people who have the luxury or the privilege, or whatever you want to call it, of being engaged in the aquaculture industry to actually carry out their business in a way that is in the public interest and cognizant and reflective of public safety issue.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think I will open up debate.

Thank you.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few short words on this, especially about the shore-fastened moorings issue. I am glad that the minister is moving forward to try to correct this issue, because the catastrophe that happened a few years ago happened in my district, and a previous student of mine lost his life one night skidooing when he got entangled in a shore-fastened mooring involved in a mussel farm. I am glad that the minister has now given his officials in his department the authority to be able to cut these shore-fastened moorings anytime they see them. I think that is what you have in the legislation.

Minister, in the next section there it talks about penalties and the first offence being $5,000 and the second one being $10,000. I do not know if that also deals with the shore-fastened moorings, because it is fine and dandy to go out and have an official cut a shore-fastened mooring, but that can be easily reattached and tied to the shore shortly after your inspectors leave.

What I am asking basically is: If he is caught doing in the second time around, after it has been cut and he reattaches it, is his first offence going to be just $5,000. Let's face it, to lose one's life because of these shore-fastened moorings, a $5,000 fine does not appear to be a big fine in that regard. I am just wondering: The penalty section, does that also apply to the shore-fastened moorings. If so, Minister, the second offence for that should be more than, I think, the $10,000 that you are saying should be in effect here, because even $10,000 is not a lot of money to be fined after causing the death of an individual.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say a few words in second reading on Bill 19, An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act. I support the minister's amendments to the legislation. We do need to keep pace with the needs of the industry. It is very important in developing industry in the Province and we are going to see more of it as time goes on. We need to protect and organize the industry in a good way, also protection of the environment while we are going through that. The minister has raised such important safety consequences, too, in relation to shore-fastening moorings.

I would say, by way of caution - and nobody in this Province or in this House wants to see anybody lose their life through accident. I think we should be cautious about going overboard here in terms of what kind of provisions you might want to put in place. I can understand having requirements. Safety is a very important issue in any endeavor, making sure that these shore-fastening moorings are visible and all of that. This is a very important point. I do not think you can protect from any accident or any hazard that might exist. Surely, tragedies such as the Member for Twillingate & Fogo mentioned are very serious and very unfortunate. I would not want to see any of them happen again.

I think we want to be careful here. It is an industry in a defined area where this activity takes place. I am not suggesting - and I do not know anything about the individual case that my colleague from Fogo & Twillingate mentions, but we do have, unfortunately, snowmobile accidents throughout the Province, people hitting guy wires on poles, people running into fences, people out on bad ice and all of that. There is a big responsibility, too, for people operating snowmobiles to take care of where they are driving their snowmobiles and where they are operating these snowmobiles, what time of the day and night and all of that sort of thing. I think we should try and ensure that people who are operating these machines have the proper level of safety consciousness and awareness of, not only the rules in terms of operating machines but also the kind of hazards they might encounter.

While I recognize that safety is very important, and perhaps the minister has the authority to make some regulations, that these things should be a bit more visible to people operating snowmobiles. That is an important thing to do. I do not think we should be so onerous as to prevent the possibility of the aquaculture industry from developing. Maybe some efforts should be made in the areas where aquaculture farms, for example, are operating to make the public aware of the hazards that are there with the shore-fastened moorings and the dangers that they impose.

I have seen advertisements trying to develop awareness about the hazards of snowmobile operators in crossing railway tracks, particularly in Labrador where they actually have trains. We do not have them anymore, but we do have rules of the road in terms of if a snowmobile is crossing the road. We do have awareness campaigns about the possibility of snowmobilers running into wire fences or other obstacles and guy wires. Perhaps the minister can work with the minister of - I believe it might come under the Minister of Government Services and Lands, to insure that when warning snowmobilers and others of hazards that included in that are aquacultural hazards that might exist in certain bays and harbours around the Province.

There are more ways than one to deal with these things. Giving someone a fine after someone hits one of these things is one way. Educating the public, and particularly people who might be affected by these hazards, is another. Making them more visible is another. I think we should not be too ready to impose overly punitive fines where there is a violation of a provision such as this.

If we are talking about introducing something brand new, which I understand this is, there has to be a period of education, both of the public and the people in the aquaculture industry, training of the people who are enforcing this, and maybe an overall awareness campaign so that these shore-fastened moorings or other hazards to people riding snowmobiles can be better identified. I think is probably, to me at least, a more common sense approach than to go overboard at the very beginning and have very significant, possibly crippling fines being imposed on people who may not be fully aware of the consequences of having these moorings in place, and a public who may not be fully aware of that these hazards exist.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I support the legislation and look forward to the minister's comments in closing debate.

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a couple of comments on that. The district that I represent probably has more potential for aquaculture than anywhere else in the Province, especially in the fin fish industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: We have warm water.

MR. LANGDON: We have warm water. It is ice free all year round.

It is very important, as the minister has said, that what takes place in the aquaculture industry takes place with thought and with a plan in place. There is no doubt about it that some of the sites up on the South West Coast where you have the license for mussel sites and aquaculture sites that have been abandoned, it is very, very important to be able to regulate what goes on there and to make sure, as the legislation says, that it is environmentally friendly.

One of the biggest things, I think, for us in Newfoundland aquaculture, and especially along the South Coast, is to make sure that the environment is protected because once the environment is protected as much as possible, then, obviously, the negative publicity that comes with it can be somewhat abated and to an extent alleviated as much as possible. I think that is very important.

I think, as has already been said, it is a privilege for people to have an opportunity to put these particular sites in place, to have their cages and so on. As a result of that privilege comes responsibility. I think that government here is working with that to make sure it does happen.

As I speak, there are further aquaculture sites being put in place in the district that I represent, new hirings of people coming in place, so I can see being able to tidy up, as the minister as said here, and make some particular standards and put in new regulations to regulate the industry much more as it progresses and grows. I think that is very important.

Also, in the shore-fastened moorings, from my district's point of view, it is practically ice free all year round, but I can see where the minister would be concerned in the northeast part of the Province, especially where the shorelines are, for mussels and so on, where you have lots of skidooing. I am sure that - again, I think it is incumbent upon the person who would have access to that particular site. With the minister in making new regulations, there should probably be some flags or some identification so that if a person is using one of these powered machines he does have some indication that they are coming before he gets on it.

With that in mind, I will conclude my comments and say that if there is anything that we can do to make the industry much more regulated, but not only regulated in a sense but also conducive to expansion is what it is about.

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

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just in response to the points made by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. He is correct in pointing out that the fine for a second offence is a low of $5,000 and a high of $10,000, or to a combination of the fine and possibly up to twelve months in prison.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, this is a very serious issue we are talking about, when you talk about the loss of somebody's life. You know, there is no fine that you can put on that, which can deal with that. We believe with the authority that this act gives us now, we hopefully will find ourselves in a position where we will not have shore fastened moorings. The moorings will be under water and we will be able to deal with it - we will be able to prevent it as opposed to having to deal with it through the courts afterwards. That is what our hope is.

Additionally, in section 4.(10), on page 6, it also goes on to point out there that, "The minister may suspend an aquaculture licence upon breach of a term, condition or provision of that licence, this Act or the regulations." So, while the fines might be small, relatively speaking to what we are talking about here, the magnitude of the situation is not lost on us and the ability to cancel somebody's licence is certainly bigger than any fine could potentially be.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, our hope here is prevention, not dealing with the situation through the courts afterwards.

Thank you.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act. ( Bill 19)

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Later today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. ( Bill 19)

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

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

Order 5, second reading of a bill, with respect to the Acting Minister of Health and Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Medicine In The Province. (Bill 21)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 21, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Medicine In The Province, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice Of Medicine In The Province." (Bill 21)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Acting Minister of Health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This particular bill here, Bill 21, proposes to bring in a whole new act and repeal the current act. What it does, it puts forth, probably, four changes that are significant and a lot of the other aspects encompasses what is already in the current act.

There are four things that it does. The first thing it does in this act is the renewal of the disciplinary procedures in the government structure within the medical profession. That is one particular aspect.

The second thing in the act it does is its clear articulation of a physicians responsibility, that they now have an obligation. Basically, beforehand they did not. They are going to report any professional misconduct, incapacity or any unfitness.

The third thing referenced was the establishment of controls regarding the prescription of narcotics through the implementation of special prescription pads.

The fourth thing was going to extend the existing rights that are there now and give them to provisionally, licensed physicians to be able to incorporate it. That was inadvertently left out in the Medical Act in 2001.

Those four things - and what it does, the OxyContin Task Force Report, in Recommendation 43 of that report, addresses the concerns that were brought forward dealing with the OxyContin Task Force Report. In that recommendation what needs to be done, in particular for people who are dealing with addictions there, are some strong measures to prevent a duplication, a tracing or a reproduction of prescriptions that might be injurious and not being prescribed. Also what it does, for anybody who does prescribe it, there is an obligation now if there are prescriptions being given that are not appropriate or not acting professionally, now it is an obligation for a physician to report that. Before, when it may have been considered to be unethical, there was no legal obligation to have to do that. So, that is another very significant aspect of this.

What is does also, when there was a complaint before it went to the Registrar of, what is called, the Newfoundland Medical Board. Now under this new structure, the Newfoundland Medical Board will now become the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Newfoundland and Labrador. When the complaint comes into the board now, it will be dealt with - first of all, I will mention what the board is composed of. That is called a council. On the council, which represents the College of Physicians and Surgeons - the Medical Board will no longer exist, it will be under this new name that is appropriate in with other jurisdictions. There are thirteen members who would sit on that board. Seven would be elected from the Members of the College of Physicians and Surgeons; four would be appointed by the minister; three appointed non, they have to be non-medical practitioners; one from a list submitted by the Board of Regents of Memorial University; and two will come from the medical association which represents these, that is called the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association.

When it goes to that board, the council will look at that and if there is a complaint, then there will be a complaints authorization committee established of three people, who would come from that particular council to look at each of these, to do whatever investigation is necessary. They have the authority under the Public Inquiries Act. Out of those three, there must be one who is not a medical practitioner. They would have the power to refer it back to the registrar. It could be settled to the mutual satisfaction of everybody. There might be more investigation required by the complaints authorization committee. They might have to even hire somebody to carry out certain work on their behalf. They could deal with that and maybe get it resolved to the satisfaction of all parties and in the best public interest.

There is also an opportunity beyond that to go to a disciplinary panel. There is a disciplinary panel which consists of fifteen people; ten people that are arm's-length from the complaints authorization committee and the council. It would be ten physicians and five non-physicians, non-medical practitioners appointed by the minister. From that disciplinary panel there will be an adjudication tribunal selected of three people - if we needed to deal further with matters pertaining to that - of which, at least, one must be appointed by the minister, not from medical practitioners.

So, it gives an opportunity for a system to be put in place where there is going to be a great degree of accountability by the peers and colleagues of any particular physician who is out there. They would not be under any particular stress; acting in good faith. There would not be able to be any action or in any way their operation affected, their livelihood affected by, or in anyway repercussions because they have reported that. That protection would be there under that.

There is always a recourse, Mr. Speaker. If somebody is not satisfied with a process, they can go through to the court system, but we are confident that would be an unusual circumstance. The option is still there for anyone wishing to pursue that. We have worked closely with the medical board on this issue and have been very cooperative in the process of putting this together. Of course, today we addressed this in a public forum, a news conference, with the Registrar of the Medical Board, Dr. Young. I must say we had tremendous co-operation from them representing what will be the college of physician and surgeons in the Province that is now called the medical board.

We are very hopefully, Mr. Speaker, that this would move forward and satisfy some pressing demands from the OxyContin Task Force report, and also deals with a great deal of accountability there, and to move with some of the most progressive legislation in this country dealing with this particular issue.

Thank you.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise and speak to Bill 21, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Medicine In The Province. I just listened to the minister give a brief overview of the main components of the act that are being amended today. Basically, it is a little bit of streamlining within the Medical Association, one in which we will see the provisions, I guess, allow for the separation of the board that deals with advocacy functions as well as licensing and registration, which will come under a new name, as he has already indicated, the college of physicians and surgeons of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the component I am most interested in here is the Complaints Authorization Committee and the process that will be set up under this body to allow for complaints with regard to physicians, the practice of physicians or surgeons in the Province. I think we have all heard of cases in our medical system, not unlike any other system of a public service, I guess, that is being administered in a province, but we have all heard of cases where people have felt that they have not always gotten the best treatment, the most effective treatment, the most appropriate diagnosis, or whatever the case may be, for a medical illness, and, Mr. Speaker, have taken their complaints forward to peer groups of physicians in the Province, quite often most of them working within the one office, the one hospital.

I have dealt with constituents matters and people outside of my constituency who have not always felt they have gotten the best hearing, or the fairest hearing, with regard to their particular case, and, I guess, felt to a certain degree, because they were going through a peer process or a process whereby these people where always in the one facility or in the one hospital, that they may not have gotten the fairest hearing and may not have gotten the most detailed hearing with regard to their particular medical case. In essence, bringing people in from different faculties of the hospital system within our Province, having some appointed by peers, some appointed by government, some appointed by the Board of Regents, I understand, of Memorial University, and other disciplines like that, is allowing for more of a cross section, a more diverse group of people, to look at these particular complaints that are being brought forward.

There are a couple of points of clarification that I would like to raise, and one is complaints that are being brought forward. Will there be complaints from peers themselves? If I am working as a surgeon in an operating room with another surgeon, will they have the option to bring forward a complaint if they see me conduct my job in a matter that I should not have or deal with a particular patient case in a way that I should not have? Will they have the right and option to bring forward those complaints to this particular complaint authority and have them dealt with as a peer? I see the Member for Trinity North, who is the parliamentary secretary for Health, nodding his head in an agreement. I am to assume that would indeed be the case, and that physicians, surgeons, and all people who are involved in this particular college, would have that ability to bring forward complaints of peers and have them heard without any repercussions, I understand.

There was one section of the legislation - and I am trying to recall from memory - I think it was section 36 of the act that basically said, if there was to be a peer tribunal or peer consultation that the results of that particular peer consultation would not be brought forward to the complaint commission and, indeed, would be protected under this particular bill. I am not sure if that was the intent of it, if that is the case, so I would like to ask for some clarification there. I will just find the section. Basically, it talks about information that is obtained through a peer assessment review.

I am understanding that, if I am a practicing physician employed with the St. John's Health Corporation at the Health Sciences Center and there is a complaint that is fined against me in the job that I do, there could be a peer assessment review of my peers within that hospital to look at my performance, but the information of that peer assessment would not be brought forward to a complaint commission under this act as is established right now.

The Member for Trinity North and Parliamentary Secretary is nodding his head that, that is indeed the case. That is one of the concerns that I had, Mr. Speaker, because, as you know, there are times when there will be instances within a health care corporation, or within a hospital, that will not necessarily be of the broader interest to the public in which there are peer reviews being done by physicians as I am sure there are done by other boards and establishments and workplaces and so on. That will not necessarily be brought forward on a regular basis to the complaint commission, but that the complaint commission in itself will operate separately and will be done so based on information brought forward by patients, by the public, by peers and so on, as it relates to any physician or surgeon who is covered under the act.

Mr. Speaker, the minister also talked about how changes within this new bill, Bill 21, were going to help fight the abuse and misuse of OxyContin and other prescription drugs. Of course, the details that I have are those that are in the bill itself and those that were published on the government website. I fail to see how this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, is going to fight the misuse and abuse of OxyContin and other prescription drugs. I would like to have more details from the government and from the minister on how, in fact, that is going to apply.

I do know that there have been certain measures taken by the government opposite. In the Budget they announced they would spend $1.7 million to set up certain measures to be able to deal with the methadone maintenance program and detox centre in St. John's, and I think it was also in the Grand Falls or Corner Brook area. I am trying to remember now. It was to deal with a methadone training program for physicians as well, I understand, and a treatment program. They also talked about some kind of pharmacy network program that they would put in place that would be on line so that physicians and pharmacists would be able to track medical histories of patients and so on.

I am just wondering - to me, that is a completely separate issue. It was an announcement that was made in the Budget and, as you know, we still have a lot of issues around the abuse of OxyContin around the Province. We are still seeing, in this Province today, a very high crime rate, especially in the capital city. A lot of it is due to the abuse and overuse of drugs, prescription drugs as well as other drugs. I think it is safe to say that the high crime rate we have seen in the city in recent months and in the past couple of years is significantly linked to drug abuse and the overuse of drugs.

Just recently, we had incidents in Grand Falls where we had people who were sent to Grand Falls to the methadone centre there for treatment, who, Mr. Speaker, got into trouble out there, were causing some break-ins and some theft. So, we are seeing it being spread to other areas as well.

It is a very serious problem and I know that there have been announcements by the government in the Budget to deal with some of this. We haven't seen much happening, I have to say, since the task force was put in place. We haven't seen the kind of control methods put in place that we wanted to. We haven't seen a lot of the recommendations come to full implementation despite the fact that there is a commitment written in the Budget. I would, certainly, like to see that changed and I would like to see it changed as soon as possible.

We had reports last week where we had pharmacists in the Province who were trying to regulate the prescription of OxyContin themselves, Mr. Speaker, I am sure not a job that they signed on for. Some pharmacists in the Province felt compelled, as part of their responsibility, to try to put some safeguard measures in there, to try to put some control methods in there, because they know that the prescription drug program that is going on right now, and the prescription of OxyContin in this Province, is out of hand and they have to control it.

I fail to see, as part of the legislation, any information that the minister has provided thus far, how this particular bill is going to, first of all, act against the abuse and misuse of drugs and prescription drugs, specifically OxyContin, in the Province. Maybe when he speaks again, he can give me more information, more details, on how that is going to occur and how a new board, Mr. Speaker, of physicians in the Province, changing it from the Medical Association, of course, to the College of Physicians and Surgeons in the Province, is going to do that. I know that this new organization would be enacted under some different legislation, be comprised of a different board, do some different things than we would have seen under the Medical Association, as well as put in place a great deal of measures to allow for complaints, to allow for appeals to complaints, to allow for tribunals, to allow for more investigation of any misconduct in the system. I certainly see that it is falling short of how it is going to meet the recommendations in the OxyContin Task Force. So, maybe he can clarify that for me when he speaks.

In essence, Mr. Speaker, I do not have a great deal of problem with the bill. I understand the comments that were made by Dr. Robert Young from the Newfoundland Medical Board. In his opinion, it is bringing us in line with other jurisdictions of Canada when it comes to the medical profession. In fact, I think he went as far as to say that he welcomed the new legislation and the new medical act that was being brought forward.

We do not have a great deal of problem with it, but there are some things I would like to have clarified. I think that the minister's piece around dealing with this new board is going to counteract any misuse of drugs in the Province, especially OxyContin. It is not very clear in my mind, and I think there is a little bit, maybe, of an exaggeration, but I will let the minister speak to that and clarify it when he makes his comments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words on Bill 21, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Medicine In The Province. In talking about the bill, there are sort of several aspects of it. One of them is just a consolidation of a number of matters related to the medical profession, which we support.

Changing the Medical Board to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, that certainly separates out and brings it in line with other provinces. We do recognize that there is a need to have a separate board for licensing and disciplining of physicians as opposed to advocating on behalf of medical practitioners. We have seen that happen in other professions as well, Mr. Speaker, most recently in the last session of the House with respect to pharmacists, so that part of it we certainly support. The confirmation of that, and also the notion of the College of Physicians and Surgeons is something that, across the country, people have more understanding of the role of those bodies as opposed to the medical associations.

The other aspect of that, I will say in passing, I note that this legislation also specifically recognizes the right of medical practitioners to incorporate their practices, which was mentioned earlier, is now being allowed for lawyers in the Province. That is also part of this legislation as well.

What I want to emphasize in my remarks is the whole issue of how it is the medical profession disciplines its members and, in particular, in relation to the concerns that have been raised about OxyContin and the OxyContin Task Force.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I was amongst many people in this Province who were shocked - shocked - to be told that the Medical Board appeared to have no ability to control something that everybody on the streets in St. John's seems to know about, that certain doctors are over-prescribing OxyContin, to the point that the pharmacists have had to come out and say: I am no longer filling prescriptions for certain doctors.

I have a great deal of difficulty with that. I have looked at the legislation that we have here today, and I looked at the previous legislation that was in existence, and what that said was: Where the board is of the opinion - of the opinion - or has reasonable cause to believe that a person who is a medical practitioner, or who is registered in the educational register, has committed professional misconduct or malpractice, or may - may - be guilty of conduct unbecoming a medical professional, the board may conduct an inquiry - after a full inquiry, and they are allowed to do a pre-inquiry investigation.

I heard representatives of the medical profession say on the radio that, while they had the authority to investigate a complaint, the complaint must come from the patient and could not even come from another doctor. So that means a pharmacist who is aware of certain habits, or another doctor who is aware of certain circumstances, was not able to initiate a complaint.

I find it very hard to believe, under the wording that we have, in the legislation before it is amended, that there is no power to do that. I, for one, am extremely surprised that would be the interpretation accepted by this government in dealing with the medical profession. I know the public of this Province is extremely concerned about the consequences of the OxyContin use in Newfoundland and Labrador. I have heard it said that the expectation of the people who actually manufacture this drug OxyContin is that it would be only available and only necessary for a very, very small portion of the population. A very small portion of the population would even need to have access to this drug because of how powerful it was, how addictive it was, how it was so strong and addictive that it would only be necessary in a very small number of cases, and that argument was, in fact, used in order to get the drug approved in the first place.

We have, in this Province, in a mere matter of two years, or less than two years, a situation on our hands which is of gigantic proportions. It is causing deaths in this Province. It is causing a rash - and any police officer will tell you this - of break-ins, armed robberies, and all kinds of criminal activity in Newfoundland and Labrador because of OxyContin, which is only available from doctors; only available from doctors, physicians and pharmacies.

There is no evidence, and no one has suggested, Mr. Speaker, that there is some sort of black market in OxyContin that comes into this Province without coming in through the medical profession and through the legitimate pharmaceutical approaches. For too long there has been inaction on it, and frankly, when I look at this legislation, I do not have a lot of confidence that it is going to be dealt with very effectively.

The OxyContin Task Force, which was formed to look into this, recommended legislation being passed last year, in the fall of 2004, to do this, and, according to the release of the government on May 16, some of the changes recommended including a definition of reasonable cause to begin an investigation. No definition of reasonable cause in this legislation, Mr. Speaker. They recommended the board's responsibility to act on complaints - that is there - but the specified rights of the complainants, not there, Mr. Speaker. There is nothing in this act that protects complainants from complaining. There is lots there to protect doctors. There is a whole section, in fact.

In section 65, it says: An action does not lie against the registrar, a member of the council, officer, employee or agent of the college or council, a person or committee designated, the college as a corporation, the council as governing body of the college, a person appointed by the complaints authorization committee, disciplinary panel, an adjudication tribunal or the individual members, any licensing authorities - all of that - no action for an act or failure to act or a proceeding initiated or carried out in good faith under the act, or for carrying out their duties.

That is great, Mr. Speaker, there is no problem with that, but where is the protection for complainants? In fact, there appears to be a definition of a reporting requirement by a member of the medical professional.

Section 36 says: A medical practitioner - and get this. Not suspicion, Mr. Speaker, not reasonable cause to suspect, or not information that indicates that something bad is going on, but this medical practitioner must have knowledge, from direct observation or objective evidence, of conduct - not that may be deserving of sanction, but conduct - deserving of sanction of another medical practitioner or a person who is registered.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in order for a medical doctor under this legislation to be required to report, he or she has to have direct knowledge or objective evidence, not a report from a patient, direct evidence or objective evidence of conduct deserving of sanction, not conduct that might be deserving of sanction, not conduct that may be deserving of sanction, but is required to report only if he has direct knowledge or from direct observation or objective evidence. That is the only time doctors are required to do it. Mr. Speaker, basically, the medical profession has to have hard evidence. Then, Mr. Speaker, there is very weak protection for that doctor even when he does.

"An action shall not be brought against the medical practitioner, person, corporation, partnership or association or its directors for the sole reason that he or she or the corporation, partnership or association complied with this section." In other words, it is only if the action is for the sole reason of the complaint. If it is thrown in with a whole bunch of other things, then maybe you can bring an action. It does not protect the medical practitioner on the one hand when they do report, and section 36 does not require them to report unless they have, what I call, hard evidence. There is something wrong with that, Mr. Speaker. It is not consistent with the kind of reporting requirements that we have for child welfare protection, which requires people to report suspected child abuse, not hard evidence, not direct knowledge, not objective evidence, but you are required to report if you have grounds to suspect that a child maybe abused. In this case, doctors must have hard evidence before they can suggest to the Medical Board that, maybe you should check on Dr. So and So because I have seen his patients and they have told me that they have been prescribed all kinds of OxyContin or something else. That is not objective evidence, that is just a hearsay from somebody.

According to this, the doctor does not have to report it and there is no protection for one who necessarily does, because they do not have the hard evidence that seems to be required. A doctor who has reasonable grounds to suspect something is going on, he does not have to report it. In fact, one wonders whether he is even allowed to report it, because he may be opening himself to a charge by some other person.

I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that section is particularly effective. I really do not because, you know, like the people who are getting OxyContin illegally, they are not reporting this. They are not reporting this, if they are going to a medical doctor and the doctor is giving them OxyContin for improper reasons. I have heard some pretty wild stories about you get OxyContin in this town, I can tell you that. I will not go into details but I have heard some pretty wild stories. Some of them may be true and some of them may not be true, so I am not going to repeat them. If a patient is getting OxyContin improperly because they are addicted to OxyContin and they want it, they are not going to report to the Medical Board, but somebody else might know about it. Some other doctor might know about it but might not have the hard evidence section 36 requires because it requires direct knowledge - that is the wording that is chosen for some reason - or objective evidence of conduct deserving sanction, not conduct that might deserve sanction but conduct that does deserve sanction. If it turns out that it does not deserve sanction then obviously he is misreported.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The pharmacist might know but the pharmacist is not a medical practitioner though.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The pharmacist may make an allegation, yes, a written document alleging that a person is engaged in conduct deserving of sanction, that is only an allegation. You are allowed to make an allegation. That is fine. Somebody can make an allegation. I guess a doctor could do that too.

I cannot really engage in the discussion with the member. It may be a one-way discussion because anybody watches, of course, only hears what I am saying. If the member wants to speak in debate, whether it is at second reading or in Committee, I would welcome him to do so.

I am not convinced, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation is going to do the job because it, certainly, I suppose, permits a doctor to make an allegation. That person could be a complainant, I suppose. I do not see, and maybe the minister can point me - maybe I have missed it. The minister did say in the press release that was issued on May 16, "...specify rights of complainants..." I do not know where in this legislation the rights of complainants are actually contained. I would like to see, Mr. Speaker, an opportunity for anyone to make an allegation, whether it be a doctor or an individual who has an allegation to make.

There is a Complaints Authorization Committee that is there to dismiss, presumably without great cost to the individual doctor - I know the Law Society has this too, Mr. Speaker. Anybody can make a complaint. There is no problem with anybody making a complaint to the Law Society. I do not disagree with this process here. We have a Complaints Authorization Committee, but it has the possibility of anyone making a complaint having that complaint investigated. Mr. Speaker, if the complaint is erroneous, or there is insufficient evidence to justify the complaint, then it can be dismissed at an early stage. I do not have a problem with that. I think that medical professionals, just as lawyers or other professionals, have to be protected by not having to go through big, huge expensive procedures if there are no reasonable grounds found by a Complaints Authorization Committee. It is at the earlier stage that I am concerned about, Mr. Speaker, that someone should be free to make an allegation in good faith and be protected.

I do not see anything in this that protects complainants, who are making allegations in good faith, from being damaged by some sort of chill that might take place, by being concerned about defamation actions by medical professionals. These are the kind of things that would prevent people from coming forward, Mr. Speaker, even medical professionals, because of fear of being sued for defamation if it turns out that their complaint is not justified or not found to be deserving of sanction, as section 36 requires in order for medical practitioners to come forward.

These are serious issues, Mr. Speaker, and I raise them in a serious way. I am extremely concerned, like many others, and I am sure members opposite are concerned, about the eruption of an OxyContin addiction plague facing the people in this Province, certain people who are vulnerable to OxyContin. Mr. Speaker, when I was campaigning for the 2003 election some fellow told me that he just got out of jail after spending six months in jail for shoplifting. I said: Six months in jail for shoplifting? Who goes to jail for six months for shoplifting? He said, well I did, Mr. Harris, I went to jail for six months, because I was addicted. He called it OxyCotton, cotton as in clothes. I had never heard of it before, Mr. Speaker, and that was in the fall of 2003. I had never heard of this drug, OxyContin, but he was addicted to it and he ended up shoplifting to get money so that he could buy more OxyContin and ended up in jail for shoplifting. He told me that he was no longer addicted and he was hoping to get a job. That was the first I heard of it, Mr. Speaker, in the fall of 2003.

Here we are only, not even two years later, and everybody in this Province knows about it, Mr. Speaker. People have died as a result of it, people are in jail for armed robbery. It is an extremely addictive drug. Doctors will not prescribe- I hear all kinds of stories, Mr. Speaker, that doctors will not prescribe Morphine. I have even heard people say: You cannot prescribe Morphine, you might get addicted even though you are on your death bed. Some doctors are that scrupulous, Mr. Speaker, about Morphine, and yet we see a proliferation of a drug that is more - appears to be at least - more addictive then Morphine and other serious narcotics.

We do have a serious problem, Mr. Speaker, and I am not sure this legislation is going to deal with it. Maybe the minister can answer all those questions. There is a serious concern about the ability of not just medical professionals, but anyone, to make an allegation and be protected from actions of defamation for making those kinds of allegations, because they are serious and they could effect the ability of a medical professional to make a living. Mr. Speaker, if the kind of abuse that we are hearing about has any basis in reality than there are probably certain medical professionals who should not be practicing medicine, Mr. Speaker, because this kind of abuse appears to be something that can be addressed and should be addressed. I am very shocked to see that it has taken so long for us to get to this point. If we are going to go with this exercise of passing legislation, I want to be sure it is going to be effective and I want to see that it works.

I support the changes to the legislation and I support an attempt for us to try and get this OxyContin issue under control. In order to do that, there are a number of medical professionals who seem to have to be brought under control. I am not sure that this bill is going to be effective to make that happen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Acting Minister of Health and Community Services speaks now he will close the debate at second reading.

The hon. the Minister.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In reference to some of the points there. The Opposition critic indicated that she cannot see how a change in a name is going to solve the problem. That was never indicated. That was never the purpose. The change of the name, I might start by saying, was to bring it inline with the names the (inaudible) that is used in other jurisdictions, the College of Physician and Surgeons of Newfoundland and Labrador from what is called now the Newfoundland Medical Board. We never indicated that is going to solve any problems, the name. It is not in the name at all and we did not imply that, nor did we indicate that.

What I will do - it is a progressive step forward on what is there right now. Who out there in the public now - if somebody witnesses a break-in or witnesses some other illegal act going on, what right do they have to force them to report? This is a medical act that is going to put a responsibility on a physician. Who is going to put any act - if someone witnessed a hit and run, if they witnessed an accident, if they witnessed a break-in, any illegal activity in the Province, if a person does not come forward and indicate that, nothing happens. This is a medical act to put a certain degree of responsibility upon the medical professional, the medical practitioner.

Section 36 of the act says it, "...has knowledge, from direct observation or objective evidence...". Who is going to put in a complaint if it is unfounded? There has to be a rationale if you are going to complain. Is it from your own observation or objective evidence? That objective evidence would not necessarily have to come from that individual. Somebody could come in with objective evidence or information that this has happened. So, why would somebody go out on a limb without any foundation or basis and make a complaint when there is no foundation to it? There has to be a certain degree of responsibility on the complainant. The complainant does not have to be a doctor or does not have to be a medical practitioner. The complainant could be the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, who is aware that there are horror stories going on with OxyContin. If he is aware of those, he could be the complainant in this case for example, or somebody else can be the complainant - you, or me, or anybody. So, it is not exclusive for everybody else and just inclusive for medical practitioners. This puts a responsibility on the medical practitioner.

The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair said she does not see how this is going to help. Well, tamper resistance prescription pads is going to help because they cannot copy or duplicate that. It will cut down on somebody who wants to get prescriptions and duplicate these, get them and sell them on the street. That is going to limit people. It is going to limit access to OxyContin from getting into the hands of people that might be sold or given to who have an addiction. That is a positive step.

If a doctor is aware or has objective evidence or he has information to indicate something, he now has an onus, an obligation under the law to report that. That was not there before, Mr. Speaker. That was not there. That is there now. So anything to advance this forward, to improve it, within certain limitations - we cannot go on a witch hunt to every single person out there, jumping up and making allegations. There has to be some foundation. Some type of evidence to do it, otherwise it becomes dealing with probably hundreds of complaints without foundation. If anybody is going to make a complaint or an allegation - anybody can do that. They can put it right into the board, to the College of Physicians and Surgeons in Newfoundland and Labrador. It could be anybody, but this puts a responsibility on a physician that was not there before. We think that is positive. We think it is progressive.

Section 34.(b) "complainant" means a person making an allegation and includes a person making a report under section 36." - which would be, in this case, a medical practitioner. So, it includes a medical practitioner, but it does not limit it to a medical practitioner. It could be anybody in the public. These are positive steps forward in this particular piece of legislation that advances from where it is now, and it is going to deal with it.

Some of the questions made, they do not pertain to the bill, but I will make a very brief comment before I close on that. We have invested. There is an expenditure in the Budget of $1.7 million. The OxyContin Task Force, $1 million specific recommendation dealing with recommendation 43, which deals with these and deals to move forward with some of these on the report. It was not practical to move the act quickly in the fall. Even in conversations with the medical board, there were too many details and things to be able to get it on the table there. So I said we will get it here before the House. We will try to move it as quickly as possible with the co-operation of people on that side of the House; advance it. I said we will get it as fast as possible. We will get it done today, if the co-operation is there to move forward and get this done, because it is a progressive part of legislation that will be an impediment to accessing OxyContin which is causing a lot of problems for people here in our Province.

With that, I close second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 21, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Medicine In The Province, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Practice of Medicine In The Province. (Bill 21).

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice of Medicine In The Province," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 21)

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

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

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker, to consider matters related to the following bills: Bill 28, Bill31, Bill 30, Bill 29, Bill 27, Bill 19 and Bill 21.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 21, Bill 19, Bill 27, Bill 28, Bill 29, Bill 30 and Bill 31.

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

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Bill 21, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Medicine In The Province.

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice Of Medicine In The Province." (Bill 21)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 71 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 71 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 to 71 is carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 71 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act Respecting The Practice of Medicine In The Province.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 21, An Act Respecting The Practice of Medicine In The Province, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 21 is carried.

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

CHAIR: Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act." (Bill 31)

CLERK: Clauses 1 and 2.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 and 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Clauses 1 and 2 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 and 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act.

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 Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 31 is carried.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

Bill 28, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act." (Bill 28)

CLERK: Clauses 1, 2 and 3.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1, 2 and 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1, 2 and 3 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 3 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall the Committee report Bill 28, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 28 is carried.

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

CHAIR: Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999." (Bill 30)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 21 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 21 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 21 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 21 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999.

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 Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999, 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: Order, please!

Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act." (Bill 27)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 16.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 16 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to say a few words because I raised some concerns at second reading, particularly concerning the deposit sections of the legislation, the requirements for which were being removed and are being removed by clause 6 and clause 7.

I was concerned about that because it seemed to be removing - at least on the surface - a consumer protection that had been there. I raised that, and in the interim the minister has arranged for the Superintendent of Insurance to be available and has provided an explanation to me that is quite satisfactory, that these deposit sections only apply to certain extra-provincial companies and that Newfoundland and Labrador companies were not required to be involved in this, and that, in replacement for the protection that was provided by the deposit, which was limited in nature, there is now a licensing requirement that before any extra-provincial company is licensed in this Province to sell insurance they must be a member of the property and casualty insurance companies corporation, which does provide greater protection than the deposit would.

I am quite satisfied, Mr. Chairman, that this legislation is not going to have any negative effect on consumers. I want to thank the minister for making the superintendent available on very short notice to provide that explanation.

I support the legislation, and I just want to put on the record that I have been certainly satisfied by what was indicated by the Superintendent of Insurance.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 16 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 16 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 16 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 27 is carried.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The Municipal Elections Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The Municipal Elections Act." (Bill 29)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 6 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 6 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 to 6 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The Municipal Elections Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The Municipal Elections Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 29 is carried.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

Bill 19, An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act." ( Bill 19).

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 8 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 8 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 8 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 to 8 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 19, An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 19 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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 (Hodder): Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 21, Bill 31, Bill 28, Bill 30, Bill 27, Bill 29, and Bill 19 passed without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 21, Bill 19, Bill 27, Bill 28, Bill 29, Bill 30, and Bill 31 carried without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now, by leave.

When shall the bills be read a third time?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now, by leave.

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

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

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

I move third reading of Bill 28.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 28, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 28 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act. (Bill 28)

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 Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper." (Bill 28)

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

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

Third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act. (Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 31 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act. (Bill 31)

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 Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper." (Bill 31)

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

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

I move third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999. (Bill 30)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 30 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999." (Bill 30)

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 Law Society Act, 1999," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 30)

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

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

I move third reading of An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The Municipal Elections Act. (Bill 29)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The Municipal Elections Act, be now read a third time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 29 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The Municipal Elections Act." (Bill 29)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The Municipal Elections Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 29)

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

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

Third reading, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act. (Bill 27)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill 27 be now read a third time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend Insurance Companies Act." (Bill 27)

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 Insurance Companies Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 27)

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

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

I move third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act. (Bill 19)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 19, An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act, be now read a third time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 19 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act". (Bill 19)

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 Aquaculture Act,"read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 19)

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

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

I move third reading of An Act Respecting The Practice Of Medicine In The Province. (Bill 21)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 21, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Medicine In The Province, be now read a third time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 21 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice Of Medicine In The Province." (Bill 21)

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 Respecting The Practice Of Medicine In The Province," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 21)

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

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

Before we move into second reading of Bill 20, I have just a few housekeeping matters.

First of all, I want to give notice, and by leave, that Private Members' Day, which is government private members' day this week, potentially could be used for a government business day. I believe we have consent on that.

Having said that, we do reserve the right to - and I want to give notice today that the Member for Gander's motion dealing with the Gander weather office potentially could be the private member's discussion for Monday. In accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, I want to ensure that we give the appropriate notice to all members.

Secondly, and in accordance with Standing Order 11, I do want to give notice that on tomorrow, Tuesday, May 17, the House not close at 5:30 p.m., and give further notice that on tomorrow, Tuesday, May 17, the House not close at 10:00 p.m.

[Continuation of today's sitting will be found in Hansard 26A)

 


May 16, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 26A


[Continuation of Sitting]

MR. E. BYRNE: With that, I do now move order 3, second reading of a bill, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Smoking In Public Places And The Workplace. (Bill 20)

The hon. minister had adjourned debate last week. I do now move Order 3.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that debate continue on Bill 20, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Smoking In Public Places And The Workplace. I do believe the hon. the minister had adjourned the debate. I recognize him to continue the debate now.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I had a few introductory comments. I will just have a few more. I will keep it fairly brief.

Overall, this is one that the Minister of Health and Community Services made an announcement on - I think it was December 6 - to move forward with discussions for government's wish to proceed on this bill because the current legislation that exists right now bans smoking in certain public places. The thrust of this bill is to extend that ban into bars and bingo halls. It does not propose to change any other aspect of the legislation. In fact, on November 22 in this House, actually, the Opposition encouraged government to move on this issue and about two weeks later the minister did stand in his place and did announce this. In fact, he produced a private member's resolution to that affect, too. Certainly, I think it has the support of all colleagues. I guess they will speak for themselves in due course.

The private member's resolution asks what exactly we have done in this resolution. I will just read it: BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly support a ban to provide 100 per cent protection from second-hand smoke in all public places, including bars and bingo halls.

What this bill does, Mr. Speaker, it extends that ban, that is currently there now, to bars and bingo halls. It does not change any of the aspects that is currently in the legislation. The legislation right now, for example, one of the purposes was to protect the public from second-hand smoke, to protect the employees from smoke in the establishment. There is legislation right now that sits in the Province to allow any business out there that wants to have a designated smoking room for employees only, that meets a certain standard - and that standard has an exchange of, I think, fourteen litres a second. I do not know all the technical details, I think it is a negative pressure that is supposed to be from that room to the outside. Those aspects are there right now for anybody out there. There are numerous establishments, as we are aware now, in this Province today. There are restaurants. There are other public places, public halls. There are arenas. There are numerous other facilities right now existing that have that right today, to put in a designated smoking room for employees only. That is there now. All this does - I just want to make it clear - is extend that to everybody now in bars and bingo halls. It just extended that.

While it has been raised whether we should put designated smoking rooms for employees, whether we should ban that, too. I want to say that government is not opposed to doing that, Mr. Speaker, but that was not a part of the movement to proceed and go out for public consultation on that aspect. It is not that we are opposed to doing it. We would not do it with an amendment because there would be a process needed to go out to a consultation process before that is done. If there is pressure and people want that done, we will follow that step in the future and do that but not without a consultation process. Right now it was not a part of the mandate. I spoke with the previous minister and with officials, and the Member for Trinity North who was involved in the process too, and we heard a lot of comments from the industry out there in particular.

We did hear from different businesses out there. Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador made several comments pertaining to this, Mr. Speaker. They have indicated and said that they clearly recognize the importance of risk management in their businesses. It is a wise risk management to protect the employees and customers from the effects of second-hand smoke. Courts in this country have already awarded settlements to workers harmed by exposure to second-hand smoke. The precedent is set and now in order to limit liability exposure, it is prudent to recognize the smoking ban. Employees in the establishment would not have to have access - if a company wanted to put in a designated smoking room for employees, they would not be subjected to that. At least they are protected in the workplace, whether they are musicians, artists, generally, or whether the general public would be there.

One of the things that was stressed by Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador, they said their members stated they do not wish to continue to invest in ventilation systems and other infrastructure, such as designated smoking rooms, so that in the near future another move for a complete smoking ban will render the investment useless. There are pressures out there. There are people saying: Why even have employees who want to go into a designated smoking room?

It went on also to say, one of the other aspects: Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador will stress the importance of ensuring that the ban is legislated right, that it does not leave room for loopholes for certain types of licensed establishments. If all public places and workplaces would be smoke-free then it should include all places with no opportunity for certain establishments to file for exemptions. It insists that government put adequate enforcement in place to deal with the ban and possible violators to ensure there is a level playing field. Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador has spent a great deal of time and effort consulting with members to ensure we proceed with the best interest of this industry and its employees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, these are some of the particular comments. My colleagues who attended on the consultation process have indicated to me - while I did not participate directly in this, that was prior to me taking this position. They have indicated they want a level playing field. They made specific reference to the industry itself, the beverage industry and the bar owners generally. It was indicated that we want a level playing field, even with patios and decks and so on, in order to level the playing field. It was extended. This includes the part of that licensed establishment. If you have a patio or deck you are licenced to serve food under the Food and Drug Act. You are licensed to be able to serve alcohol under the Liquor Control Act, and therefore it should be extended on that basis. Now, there are numerous other - an array of presentations. We do recognize that there may be people out there who disagree with it. The Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses here in the Province have polled their members and I believe the figure was in excess of 80 per cent in their poll supported this initiative. I spoke with a representative here in our Province in that particular area.

So, it is one that is going to allow people to go to work without having to be exposed to smoke; allow people to patronize establishments and so on without being affected by smoke. We realize that the health of people is very important. We do recognize that there are certain adverse effects probably from a business perspective as a result of that, but government felt it is important that the rights of individuals to participate in a smoke-free environment - the right of patrons are there, the right of employees; 50 per cent higher rate of lung cancer in people who work in these establishments. So, there is significant medical evidence. Research has shown that it is deleterious to your health to be able to participate in these environments, and government has moved on that basis, in the spirit of the right for people to have a smoke-free environment.

Thank you.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to rise and speak to Bill 20, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Smoking In Public Places And The Workplace.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister's comments opposite and I have certainly listened to remarks throughout the Province from every group, from the Federation of Municipalities to the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco, along with the beverage association of Newfoundland and Labrador. No doubt, there are varying opinions, but I think, Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that has remained consistent with all of these groups that I have just mentioned and many more, and that is an acceptance that there has to be smoke-free establishments in the Province to give people that option. Even in the groups that have found pieces of this legislation controversial, they have still agreed that there is room for and there should be implementations of smoke-free environments within those establishments.

Mr. Speaker, I brought forward a resolution in the House in November, of which the minister quoted from in his opening comments, that asked directly for government to look at 100 per cent ban of smoking in establishments across this Province. Where the minister and I defer on this particular piece of legislation is how it is being implemented, how it is being done with little or no consultation from the beverage industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, how it is being done without considering what the economic impact is going to be and being able to litigate that impact over a period of time to entrepreneurs in our Province who create jobs and generate in this industry more than $300 million a year in revenue. But, Mr. Speaker, those things, I think, show respect. It shows respect to our business community, it shows respect to the people who generate jobs in our economy and, at the same time, it accomplishes what the principles are that we want to do and that is create the options for smoke-free environments throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I have looked at the legislation that the minister brought forward in Bill 20. While there are some things in this bill that absolutely, no doubt, I support 100 per cent, but I also find that it comes with a very heavy hand to a certain degree, a heavy hand from government; one with regard to penalties and fines that will go as far as taking a liquor licence from an establishment, closing down the establishment outright if they find one person in that establishment who is in violation of the act who is smoking.

As an entrepreneur, people in this House would know you cannot babysit any business that you have. You cannot determine what patrons are going to do when they walk in that door. You can control it, you can put enforcements in place, you can try and counteract it. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that everything will be done to those regards, but sometimes it is out of your control. I think that by revoking a licence it certainly is the extreme of what can actually happen.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing here is government's recognition in the legislation that designated smoking rooms are not impacting the health of other people who enter that establishment. I think government recognizes that quite clearly in this legislation, because they outline in this bill that in smoke-free areas such as our hospitals, our seniors' homes and other establishments, that you can have designated smoking rooms that meet the government criteria of proper ventilation, proper systems that are being installed. By government saying that in a seniors' home in this Province, or in a hospital in this Province, or in a mental institution in this Province, you can have a designated smoking area for the people who live there, for those particular people, for the people who work there and so on, it is a recognition that designated smoking rooms do not impact upon the health and well-being of other people who are using, entering, that particular establishment.

I guess my issue with this is why the minister, in bringing forward the legislation, is allowing for designated smoking rooms in hospitals, in seniors' homes and in other public facilities, and allowing also for designated smoking rooms in bars for employees who work for that particular establishment, but not allowing the designated smoking rooms for patrons who wish to use them.

Now, if I go to a bar or a restaurant and I do not want to be in a smoking area, I really believe that should be my choice in going into that establishment. I really do believe that. I also believe that if there is a designated smoking area somewhere in this establishment that has proper ventilation and has met the Canadian Standards, then that will not impact upon my rights to be able to go in there and be able to sit in a smoke-free environment. I believe the government recognizes that. If they did not recognize that, I would challenge them why they have allowed for designated smoking rooms in other public buildings that are being regulated by the government if they did not believe that there would be protection for other people who are entering that particular establishment.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing I wanted to raise with the minister - because, you know, we are not the first Province in Canada to be looking at legislation like this. It is being looked at and has been looked at and implemented in other places, but right now I think the minister quoted in some of his comments in reference to this about what was happening in Quebec. It is my understanding that in Quebec they are moving towards smoke-free establishments, such as bars and bingo halls, but they are doing it in consulting with the people who are equivalent to the Beverage Association in Newfoundland and Labrador. They have allotted a period of time where they will go out and consult with the industry to look at what the impacts are going to be, to look at what the loss of revenue to the economy is going to be, what the loss of jobs are going to be, and how they can easily make this transition.

The other thing they are doing, Mr. Speaker, is that in Quebec they are looking at implementing the legislation right now tentatively in January of 2006 because they want to have the time to be able to do that. I think that is where government has definitely fell down on the job in this Province, because there has been a complete - in my mind they have made efforts to avoid the Beverage Association in Newfoundland and Labrador in terms of consulting with them, in terms of dealing with what the concerns are, legitimate concerns that they are raising here. You know, they have not made any efforts to talk to them about economic impact. Nobody has said to them, we are going to invest more marketing money to try and counteract this, to try and do a different profile for your establishment in the Province so that you can attract new customers, a new clientele group, so we can help boost your business, so that tomorrow the pub down the road is not laying off six people but, in fact, creating stability in that business so that although there is a change of policy and so on, they are still able to maintain and operate those businesses at good, current levels that they are now.

In my mind, government went the extra mile to avoid them at all cost. At all cost, I say, because they have not wanted to listen and to give hearing and give fair assessment to what their issues are and what their concerns are here. I think that is wrong. I think it is always wrong when a government does not want to hear all groups, all sectors that have an invested interest, no matter what the legislation is, or no matter what the issue is. I think there is a responsibility, a very legitimate responsibility, and I think that the minister and the government should have taken that much, much more seriously before they waltzed in here with legislation that failed to consult with a huge part of the industry that is going to be directly impacted by this legislation. I do not think that is right and I do not agree with it.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to look at what is happening, I think, in Nova Scotia right now. They are looking at a similar policy. I think right now they are going out to a consultation process. They have already set a date, that they will not implement the new regulations until 2008 because they want to, again, litigate any particular impacts, negatively or otherwise, that could arrive from this legislation being implemented in their province.

Do they want a smoke-free environment? Of course they do, the same as what we want in Newfoundland and Labrador, but they are going to be cautious, they are going to consult, they are going to do what it takes to be able to implement this over a period of time that is adequate and sufficient.

Mr. Speaker, I know there are a lot of groups in this Province that recommended that we have a smoke-free environment. I certainly support them, and I understand their reasons for it. Actually, even when I had discussions with the Newfoundland and Labrador Beverage Association itself, because I did take the time to listen to their side of the story, as well as that of the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco group and the Cancer Society and everyone else, one of the things I have to say, in dealing with a group of people who are going to lose a great deal of revenue, in their mind, with regard to this new policy, I was absolutely very impressed by the fact that they agreed themselves that we need to have smoke-free environments in this Province. They agreed themselves that there is room to bring these policies into their own establishments, their private businesses, where they have invested a great deal of money into being able to build up a business and employ people. They have agreed to open their doors in a private business to this government policy and this government legislation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, when I asked them about the open air policy - smoking on decks or balconies - they said: Oh, no, that is not the issue for us. We just feel that regulations in Canada now warrant that you can have designated smoking rooms that are controlled with the proper kind of conditioning that it does not impact anywhere else in the establishment, so if someone wants to come in, sit on the patio, have dinner or have lunch, they do not have to worry about someone smoking next to them.

To me, Mr. Speaker, this is more than fair coming from a group of individuals who stand to lose millions of dollars in revenue because of the policy that is being implemented today. Mr. Speaker, they realize that they have to do their part in being able to reduce the health care costs in the Province as well. They realize that people want to have options these days in terms of whether they dine or drink in a smoke or non-smoke environment, and they are more than willing to compromise. What they have a problem with is government's failure to consult with them, government's failure to recognize that there can be designated smoking rooms in public establishments like hospitals and senior homes, and also recognize that there can be designated smoking rooms in bars for employees but not recognizing that the same can be allowed to patrons, and these do not have to be designed smoking rooms where alcohol is being served. People can go out to the establishment to get served alcohol or whatever beverage they want to have - a glass of pop, a glass of water, or whatever - and still be able to go into a designated smoking area, not served by employees, if they want to smoke.

I can understand the point that they are making. Actually, I was quite astonished because a lot of the areas throughout Canada have recognized that designated smoking rooms can be established, doing no harm to anyone else who enters the establishment. I think in British Columbia they had brought in a policy where they would have a 100 per cent ban in all establishments. Several months later they went back, revisited their policy and, I think, in fact - and I stand to be corrected on this - they brought in designated smoking areas in those particular facilities afterwards.

I think we can accomplish the principles of what the government wants to do here, the principles of what advocacy groups in the Province have asked for, and we can still do it, Mr. Speaker, being able to accommodate some of the requests that are being put forward by the Newfoundland and Labrador Beverage Association. All it will require is some co-operation on behalf of the government, some recognition that these are private sector employees who have invested a great deal of money into their businesses, who want to protect their businesses but also want to protect the health and welfare of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador. They feel that they can do both by making some small change to the regulations that the minister has brought forward here. We will certainly look to explore that with government, and I ask that the minister give that his consideration as he goes through it.

There is lots of evidence to support the case that I have just made right throughout the country, and I think by the mere fact that the government themselves, in designating smoking rooms in our public institutions, have recognized themselves that they are of no harm to the health of people who go into those establishments, and that, Sir, can be the case as well in bars in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation, no doubt, has a lot of gaps in it. The time to explore it is very limited, I realized today, but, when you talk about getting special events licences, what does this mean? What does this mean? Does it mean that if I have a room and I want to hold a dart league tournament that I can go out, get a licence, and I do not have to abide by the smoking policies? I am understanding that is probably what it means. If that is the case, and the minister is refusing to allow as much as a designated smoking room in any of these establishments where people have invested private money and built up a lot of business, yet they are prepared to go out and let people, as they want, to hold fundraisers and be able to get licences where they can open it up and the ban on smoking does not apply, and so on and so forth. I think those things need to be clarified because they certainly pose a great deal of questions.

Of course, my other question is with regard to the penalties. How does this fall in line with other penalties that we have established? If I own a bar and I sell alcohol to an underage person, is my licence automatically revoked? Am I, in essence, out of business? Because, under this particular act, that is indeed what it means. It means that if a person walks into your establishment, they light up a cigarette, they are caught immediately - you may not be on the premises; your worker may have stepped aside for just one moment, and that happens - is your licence automatically revoked as the act says? If that is the case, there are pretty significant penalties because it could, in essence, put a person out of business for good and their life's worth gone, and their investment gone.

I think that the penalty piece really needs to be reviewed in the context of other legislation that we have in place, how it measures up against the sale of alcohol to minors, and other pieces of legislation that we have passed in the House. The minister may stand and tell me it is all the same. I am not sure, and that is why I am posing the question to him right now.

I would also like to have from government a complete explanation of how they, number one, intend to support the bar owners and Beverage Association in Newfoundland and Labrador over the coming months and in the next year in terms of a marketing strategy, in terms of being able to maintain good economic growth and sustainable profits within a business. That is certainly one of the things I would like see from them in terms of how they will deal with that.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask them why they feel that designated smoking areas can be permitted - and I can certainly list a whole number of institutions in the Province where they feel that they can be permitted as designated smoking areas - including in our seniors' homes, why they feel they can be located in those facilities without causing any harm to the people who work there, without causing any harm to the other residents who live there, without causing any harm to the people who would frequent that particular public place, and yet they feel that in a bar that is privately owned, to have a designated smoking area for patrons is going to, in some way, affect the health and welfare of the people who work there and the people who frequent there.

To me, it is a double standard. The legislation does become contradictory and very unclear when you get to those particular points. I really think that the government owes an explanation to the industry on why they feel that way, why they feel that it was necessary to come forward with the legislation without consulting with them, without giving them a fair hearing, without understanding what their issues were; because, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the principles are the same. What everyone wants here is the same. We disagree on how to get there, we disagree on the methods of how to get there, and I think we need to explore that a little bit more.

I do not think that the minister should be acting in haste. I think that he should stop for a little while to consider these things, to look at if there is a way that we can accomplish the same thing, accomplish the same principles, still bring in our ban, but, at the same time, be accommodating to the industry, with no impact on anyone else, I say to the minister, no impact on anyone else. I think that he has an obligation, the government has an obligation and a responsibility to do that. I would encourage them and urge them to do that, Mr. Speaker, because there is fine-tuning required here. It can be done and then this bill can pass with the full support of all the people in the Province, right from the Food and Beverage Association, to the Federation of Municipalities, to the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco, and everyone else who has been involved in this debate, so I urge the minister to do that, and I think it is his responsibility to do that.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say a few words at second reading on Bill 20, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Smoking In Public Places And The Workplace.

I first of all want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I think it is high time that we had this kind of legislation in this Province. There is no doubt in my mind that this is necessary legislation. It is certainly something that we have been hoping to see implemented for some long period of time. To exclude, essentially, recreational facilities and bars from the Smoke-free Environment Act was something that we regretted when it was done, when legislation was passed a few years ago, and it is high time that the people who work in the food and beverage industry, or the bingo halls or parish halls or whatever of this Province, have the kind of protection they want.

MS JONES: They are going to be allowed.

MR. HARRIS: I do not think that parish halls are allowed. The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair seems to think that parish halls are -

MS JONES: Special events licences (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Special events licences, I do not know where that is provide for here. Maybe if Players has a tournament, and they are going to sponsor a tournament, they would be allowed to smoke in those kinds of places. I do not know if that is what the member is referring to.

In my view, Mr. Speaker, just let me put it to you this way: If the kind of poisons and toxins that are available in second-hand smoke were in existence in another form in the Iron Ore Company of Canada, in the Labrador West plant, in a workplace here in St. John's, in a factory - I am looking at the Minister Responsible for Occupational Health and Safety - they would be outlawed, they would be shut down, because you are not allowed to poison your workers. You are not allowed to poison your workers, whether they be indoors or outdoors, in a factory or an establishment that creates and manufactures products.

There has been a long history of attempts by governments and unions to try to ensure that workplaces are safe from occupational hazards, from toxins, from poisonous substances, deleterious substances, and we have come a long way in protecting workers for this. A bar or a recreation facility is no less a workplace than a factory or office or something else. It is no defence to say that people who work in bars do so knowing that people might be smoking in them. That is an argument that is at least150 years old. In fact, it was used by the courts in the United Kingdom, by the judges, to say that if you were injured in a workplace accident then that is your own fault because you voluntarily assumed the risk of working in that factory. In fact, there is even a Latin phrase for it but I will not bore you with it. It was used by judges to prevent people from suing their employers for poisoning them or for having an unsafe workplace, because you had voluntarily assumed the risk of working in a factory in order to provide for your family and to allow you to survive.

It is the same argument that has been used by the people whom my colleague from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair is saying are quite happy to see legislation come in to have a smoke-free workplace in bars. They have been saying: Well, the people who work in our places, they know when they come to work here that they are going to be exposed to smoke and they voluntarily come here to do that.

Mr. Speaker, that is not in accordance with modern ideas about freedom, and the notion that someone may need a job for economic reasons, and if the only job available to them - and many of these people who work in bars are young people, or students who do not have any other options. They need a few dollars to be able to get themselves through post-secondary education or, as many people do - I know lots of people who work in bars as their life's occupation, bartenders who have been bartenders for thirty and forty years. That has been their job because that is how they provide for their families. Yet, they have exposure to second-hand smoke which has now been fully recognized by the medical profession, by occupational safety councils, by anybody who cares to apply objective standards, that second-hand smoke is poisonous, causes cancer, and is damaging to people's health.

The medical profession, the Department of Health, probably goes so far as to encourage people in families - and if want to just wander around any community in this Province you will see people standing out on their doorsteps smoking a cigarette because they do not want to endanger their children inside the house who may be victims of second-hand smoke from a parent. I know the Department of Health is certainly - if they are not doing it they should be, but I think they are - warning parents of the dangers of second-hand smoke to their children, and rightly so.

I have to say it is high time that we had this kind of bill that provided the same protection to people working in bars and other recreation facilities, whether it is a bingo hall or whatever, and even if they are volunteering. A lot of expectations are put on people to help out in their communities, and parish halls might be part of it, but lots of other assistance where smoking happens and people are, one way or another, expected to provide a service to their communities and they put themselves in the place of second-hand smoke.

I am not being a purist in this, Mr. Speaker. I smoked for many years. I know how addictive smoking is, and how people have a great deal of difficulty in quitting, but I have a greater concern for people who are victims of smoke than I do for people who are unfortunately addicted to smoking. Yes, smoking is legal in our country, and it is legal because of historical reasons, but that does not mean we should -

[Laughter from the gallery]

MR. HARRIS: People in the gallery seem to be amused, Mr. Speaker. I do not know if it is anything I am saying, but we do allow smoking. We do not outlaw smoking, Mr. Speaker, for historical reasons. People are addicted because of peer pressure, or coming to advertising or whatever from the tobacco industry. People are addicted to smoking, but there are a lot of people who refrain from going to bars, refrain from going out in public, because they do not want to have to put up with smoke in bars because they have medical problems, in some cases, or because they do not like to have to inhale toxic substances when they go out to be entertained.

I think what this bill does is create a level playing field. I know the Beverage Association wants to have some amendments to this legislation, and I have been told by some people that to actually meet the requirements of these designated smoking rooms is very expensive. I do not know exactly the cost, but I have heard large figures for that. I guess as the legislation now stands it is sort of a level playing field, that anybody who has and operates an establishment has to comply with the legislation which provides a 100 per cent smoke-free

environment.

 

I have heard talk about designated smoking rooms. I know the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair appears to be in favour of allowing these. I wonder to what extent employees can be protected again on this voluntary basis. You can say up front that no employee can be expected to go into these rooms, or serve in these rooms, or clean up these rooms, or anything else, but maybe they will call for volunteers. Maybe they will call for volunteers, Mr. Speaker, to actually provide service in these rooms, or to enter them, and that certain people might volunteer and other people might not. Employers would still have some control over what employees do or do not do, or what kind of perks they might get if they do volunteer.

I think, as it stands right now, it is not - I know there are disagreements about this. I do not know about having a lot of time for bar owners to get used to this legislation. I think the idea that we are going to have non-smoking bars has been around for a fair degree of time, and this Province has actually incrementally increased the restrictions on smoking, or having a smoke-free environment over time, and we are now at the stage where we are saying that nobody should be exposed to second-hand smoke in the workplace, and in public places, where the public normally goes, they should not have to put up with smoking at all. I think that is fine. Even at that, Mr. Speaker, I do think there is one section of this act that I was quite shocked by, I guess, and that is clause 13 which says that the Liquor Control Act is amended by repealing section 33(5) and adding a clause that says the board shall cancel a licence where the licensee - I will ignore the other two - is guilty of an offence under the Smoke-free Environment Act, 2005.

The Liquor Control Board shall cancel the licence. I think that is a rather extreme measure, arbitrary, especially when the section that might befall an owner of a licensed premises is section 4.(3) where it says, "An owner shall ensure that a person refrains from smoking in the public place that is normally open to members of the public for which that owner is responsible."

That seems to me to be an impossibility, that you should actually ensure. Supposing I go into a bar and light up a cigarette. The owner cannot ensure that I do not refrain from smoking. If I light up a cigarette, I am smoking. Maybe they can come and ask me to stop, or kick me out or whatever, but they have not ensured that I refrain from smoking because I have smoked.

It seems to me that if someone is charged with an offence under that, and has not ensured that I did not smoke, and is therefore going to lose their liquor licence, that seems to me to be rather draconian Now, if there is someone consistently violating the act, or has a certain number of offences, or is obviously not complying with the act or has not shown any willingness to comply with the act, or make any reasonable attempt to comply with the act, then I could see at a certain point the Liquor Control Board saying: Okay, you lose your licence. I can see that, Mr. Speaker.

When we are bringing in legislation of this nature, it is often tempting to be rather draconian in enforcement. Obviously, it has to be enforced, there is no question about that. I think if we are going to have legislation that protects the public in this way, it should be enforced, but I would like to see an amendment to this, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know if the government is listening to these things. I understand the government does have some amendments and we will have further debate at the Committee stage on this legislation. I understand there may be some amendments coming forward from the Opposition, and some from the government. If the government does not come forward with legislation to modify, or somehow or other mitigate against the arbitrariness of that legislation, I will bring one forward. I hope I do not need to do that. I am certainly prepared to listen to whatever amendments are brought forward from either side if they think this legislation needs to be changed. That is something we have Committee for.

I want to say in principle, Mr. Speaker, I support the 100 per cent smoking ban. I think we do not have an obligation, as Members of the House of Assembly, to ensure that bars and liquor establishments are profitable. Obviously, it is a business that people are engaged in. It is a legitimate business, no question about that, but I do not think we need to, at the expense of public health and safety, make sure that bartenders do not lose money based on their investment or whatever. This is something that anybody with any forward-looking outlook on life knows was coming, that it was not going to be tolerated for too much longer that public places should allow smoking or should be exempted from the general law that says you shouldn't have to be exposed to second-hand smoke in any places open normally to the public. If you want to do it in a private home, that is a different matter.

I do not know what exemptions the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair is talking about in terms of special events. I do not see why a special event should be any different than a normal public -

MS JONES: (Inaudible) in the legislation.

MR. HARRIS: Well, it may be there but I do not see why special events should be exempted from the legislation. It seems to me that, if there is legislation to protect the public in places, whether it be shopping malls which are now protected by this legislation - I just say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, if the beverage industry is so supportive of this legislation, it is a wonder that we do not have more bars that are smoke-free. I think we might have one or two, but if they are so supportive of protecting people from second-hand smoke, we would have seen more of that.

The reality is, Mr. Speaker, that people who are operating establishments of this nature are only going to provide the smoke-free environment when they are required to do so. I have had experiences in restaurants where you do not know whether you are in the smoking section or the non-smoking section because the tables are right next to each other. We have seen these smoke eaters available in some bars. Sometimes they don't work, sometimes they do, but they are certainly not effective in protecting people from the hazards of second-hand smoke.

I am not in support of this legislation out of some self-righteousness, Mr. Speaker. I think there is a protection of the public here, and in particular protection of workers who work in bars and establishments. They deserve the same kind of protection from occupational health and safety as the workers in other locations. It is not enough to say that they have a choice. All workers, presumably, have a choice either to work or not to work. You can quit your job, but that doesn't provide you with an income or supply for your family.

I heard a caller this morning who phoned into a callback program and she said she was delighted with the legislation. She personally had asthma and was unable to be in a place where a bar is. Secondly, she said: Furthermore, my daughter, who needs to get a job in a bar to support herself through post-secondary education, I am glad for her, too, because she will now be able to go to work and not be exposed to second-hand smoke.

I think that says it all, Mr. Speaker, about why this legislation is necessary. We can debate the intricacies - which we will, no doubt, over the next few days - in terms of what exceptions might be available. Nevertheless, in principle, this is very positive legislation, very necessary legislation, and we support it, but we would look forward to some changes about the draconian nature of the enforcement.

I think we have to be a little bit more wary in having arbitrary sanctions such as the automatic and non-discretionary cancellation of a licence for anyone who happens to be found guilty of an offence of this nature. It does not even say found guilty; it says is guilty of an offence. It seems to me to be a little bit more harsh than you need to be on that level. Obviously, we expect bar owners or other people to comply with this legislation, but it should not be upon pain of losing the liquor licence for a single infraction. We ought to get support for this legislation in a better way than that, rather than being as draconian as this bill seems to be at least in that regard, Mr. Speaker.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I support the legislation and look forward to debate at Committee stage to see if there are any improvements that need to be made to it, or things that can be changed. We will certainly listen to all the arguments that are coming forward at that time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity as well to speak in principle, at second reading, to Bill 20, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Smoking In Public Places And The Workplace.

I think, again, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a piece of legislation that obviously looks at the logical next step in Newfoundland and Labrador from where we have come in the last, I would suggest, fifteen years. I was proud and pleased to be part of a government in the early 1990s, fifteen years ago, that first started bringing in some legalized restrictions with respect to smoking in workplaces and in public places.

As my colleague from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair pointed out, it is not even a matter - I think if the government had done a couple of things differently here you would not have any dissenting voices at all in the Province. It is only a matter of a good initiative, the next step, but, again, not listening to some people who have a particular interest here has now a particular sector and segment offside for no good reason.

Remembering way back to fifteen years ago, I remember coming into this Legislature, being elected for the first time, whereby we were in the old Legislature upstairs, and Members of the House of Assembly - forty-eight of us now, it used to be fifty-two back then - who were smokers would gather behind the Speaker's chair and share a cigarette. The smoke would drift throughout the Chamber and so on, but it was common practice then. Not only that, people who worked in the offices in these buildings - so, remember now, we are making great strides in a short period of time. There are members here, who were here before I was, who remember, I believe it was actually permissible at one point to smoke at your desk. I do not think it was right in the Legislature, because you were always only allowed some water. There was a little curtain at the back. Where we go through wooden doors now, there used to be a little curtain that separated the exit from the Legislature from where the members were seated. The distance might have been every bit of a foot, if that. People would stand there with the curtain ajar, because they wanted to see the proceedings, their head stuck in through, smoking, and blowing smoke down the neck of the member that happened to be sitting right by the curtain. Now, that is only fifteen years.

In this building itself, people who work for the government, members themselves, if they were smokers - I never have been. I can tell you this story. I smoked when I was, I think, twelve or thirteen, much to the chagrin of my parents. Luckily for me, I got as sick as a dog, over-smoked in one day, the best thing that ever happened to me. I got sick a few times in my life. That is one time, I am glad now, fifty years later, almost - forty years later, anyway - that I smoked so much in that one day. I did not know but you were supposed to smoke the whole pack and chew them up for that matter. A first experience - a young fellow out with a bunch of other young fellows, smoking to your heart's content. I turned blue, white, green, yellow, and every colour under the rainbow, and decided that smoking was not such a great thing after all, and have not had an urge since. I know friends of mine who smoked, who tried desperately to give it up and cannot. They would probably prefer not to be smoking, because there are addictive qualities to it and so on.

The debate has changed, circumstances have changed, and we have gone through banning smoking in offices in this building, in places like this, in workplaces. That has been in place now for some time. I think Mr. Winston Baker was the President of Treasury Board at the time, when smoking was outlawed in this building in its entirety, and it has been a debate since then for thirteen or fourteen years now as to whether or not there should be a designated smoking room in the building which, if am correct, there never has been. I think the Minister of Transportation and Works, responsible for the government buildings, says no, no, we have never ever, even though the law said you could. The government decided we would not have a smoking room in the building so those who are smokers congregate outside by the entrances.

Another change, only in the last month, since April 1, because people who smoked out by the canopied areas around the entrances, had a notice on the doors - it is still there because the change is still recent and new - that now: If you are going to smoke would you please stay thirty-five feet from the entrance? I know at the back entrance that I use most times there is a little piece of orange paint, fluorescent paint out there on the ground so that the smokers know that on that side of the paint you are thirty-five feet and some inches from the building and on this side you are thirty-four feet and eleven-and-a-half inches, so you should not be there.

So, those kinds of things have been happening in society. The law has been reflecting that. Newfoundland and Labrador, only a few short years ago, did the current Smoke-Free Environment Act, which tied the latest series of changes to making sure that public places where minors, children and minors under the age of nineteen, were allowed to be present if there would not be any smoking. I remember before that because, I would say to my colleague and friend from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, some businesses had voluntarily moved ahead of the government anyway. Like malls, where not only youth and children under the age of nineteen but everybody was there. They had decided, even though the law did not require it, that there should not be smoking in malls. So, they had volunteered.

There are some owners of clubs, by the way, because I know a couple myself that I play recreation hockey and other things with, that have decided to have smoke-free establishments. There are not a lot of them, but there are some. They have decided there is a niche for them. Here there would be no resistance to this as the logical next step. As a matter of fact, there are two campaigns ongoing at the same time sponsored by the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco, both of which have a certain measure of public support, and why wouldn't they? Over 75 per cent of the population do not smoke and I would say 85 per cent or 95 per cent of those who do smoke wish they didn't, or wish they could give it up. It is not one of those things where people are going out there saying: Boy, I can't wait to take up smoking. I wish I could start smoking so I could inhale that stuff in my lungs and all that comes with it.

I think twelve and thirteen years ago, too, Mr. Speaker, there was still a group of people going around trying to protest that second-hand smoke did not have negative and dilatory effects. Now, I think the common knowledge is that second-hand smoke - I do not think you get any groups or individuals going around saying that second-hand smoke is not dangerous either. I think there has been a complete acceptance and buy in of that into society, generally.

The tobacco companies might still be the few -

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: My colleague and friend from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi suggested they might challenge some of the science with respect to that and some of the information, but the public, generally, has bought into the fact that second-hand smoke can have some negative and harmful effects as well as directly smoking. Society has reflected that. The laws have reflected that. Newfoundland and Labrador has been a leader.

You have the circumstance today where I think everybody, including members of the Beverage Industry Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, have come to the conclusion that yes, it is the right time to have their establishments smoke-free. The two campaigns that I was going to reference, that are ongoing, both sponsored by the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco, both funded by the federal and provincial government, both running public ad campaigns, television, radio and print, with two different objectives. Two different ad firms doing it, by the way. One that has been doing it for several years and one that just got a new contract a while ago without a tender because they happen to be friends of the current provincial Conservative government, but the two campaigns are different in their focus.

There is the one, again, that has been mentioned about advertisements on television showing parents going out on their own front step because they are trying to give up smoking. Their plea is: I am addicted. I am trying to give it up, but at least I have realized that I do not want to expose my other family members and children to it. That is an ad campaign about trying to help people stop smoking and trying to encourage people to stop smoking. That has nothing to do with where it is happening. That is just trying to acknowledge that there are a group of people who are trying to give up smoking. By the way, there have been great strides in that vein in the last fifteen years that I talked about. I would suggest that if you polled in Newfoundland and Labrador fifteen years ago, somewhere between 40 per cent and 50 per cent of the population would say they were smokers. Today, it is under 25 per cent. Those kinds of campaigns talking to people about the negative and adverse impact on your own health and those around you for smoking are having an impact. Unfortunately, the area of greatest concern still is teenage boys and girls, particularly girls who are a disproportionate number of smokers in our population. There were ad campaigns aimed at that population group not that long ago.

Now, the other ad campaign is very different. The other ad campaign is the one that is the main focus of this new piece of legislation. It is the ad campaign that shows workers in the Beverage Industry Association, in that sector, who work in bars and lounges where smoking is allowed, even if it is only in part of the premises, whose job dictates that they must go into an environment where there is smoking. Whether they are smokers or not, they are going to be exposed to second-hand smoke.

You see the ads where the bartender - whether it be male or female - is there serving with a mask on to make the point. This is the Occupational Health and Safety issue, that this is where I work, this is what I do, so if I am going to make my living at this, I have no choice but to be here and the law allows people around me to smoke, even if I do not. So, the law is allowing me, in my workplace - unlike the Confederation Building, by the way, because if people are obeying the law here - you do not have to worry about second-hand smoke in this building if everybody is complying with the law because you are not allowed to smoke anywhere in here. But, if I work in a bar or a lounge, and if smoking is allowed even in part of the establishment, then I am exposed to second-hand smoke for whatever my shift it is, whether it be four hours, six hours, eight hours, ten hours, whatever it be. That is one of the, I guess, things that I cannot control about my workplace. There has been a push to say that, on behalf of these workers, and workers' compensation organizations and health groups, the Federation of Labour, unions and so on, they say it is time to make sure that those people can work without having to be exposed to second-hand smoke. This bill does that.

Then what the people representing the industry have said is that we can accomplish that. I guess what the disappointment is, is that the consultation that was done did not take that into consideration. Instead, we have a group that went out and did a consultation about the general principles, came back and said we will put in this legislation and we will not take into consideration what has already happened in British Columbia and Ontario, where they have gone with these kinds of bans without designating smoking rooms only to have to reverse the circumstance some months later because the industries did take negative and adverse economic impacts of sometimes 30 per cent, 40 per cent, and 50 per cent.

The committee that went out and studied this either did not want to hear it or pretended they did not hear it or gave no credence to the studies, even though in places like British Columbia - two things have happened in B.C. Remember suing the tobacco companies as a class action on behalf of people because smoking caused health things? That was done first in B.C. and they had to do it over again. I think Newfoundland and Labrador was certainly going to join them or have a separate action against the tobacco companies, because suing them in a certain way, which was done first in British Columbia, it did not work. They are still trying to sue the tobacco companies on behalf of smokers who have become addicted to a product that can cause health problems, no doubt about it. They have found ways to do it successfully in certain states in the United States and there are governments, even like ours, trying to find a way to do it successfully here. It has been tried before and, normally, people learn from the prior experience and say that is the same kind of thing we are doing, so we need not do what they just did out in B.C. and failed because that is not going to work. Why don't we try what they are doing this time, which might work? - which is more along the lines.

With respect to an outright ban on smoking, which is what is proposed in this bill. It was brought in, in British Columbia, and after several months, guess what they did? They cancelled it. They went back to another system that allowed for some designated smoking rooms and allowed adults, who have the right to smoke, because it is a legal - not an illegal but a legal - permitted activity in our society. If an adult wants to choose to smoke, even though it is obviously not in their best personal interest, they are allowed to do so because the other choice is to ban smoking altogether in the Province; which was brought to us in different years that I was on the government side and we said: Yes, it sounds like a good idea if health is your only concern, but then you will always have to deal with the lessons of history.

They tried banning liquor and alcohol before, during the prohibition, and all you did is, you made a lot of money for gangsters and you made it illegal. You had no control over it as the government. You could not put any laws or rules around it. You lost the revenues from it, which is always important to the current Acting Minister of Health and Community Services, who happens to also be the Finance Minister. You cannot tax it because you are not allowed to drink it. The same thing for tobacco, by the way. You cannot tax it if you make it illegal to smoke it. You do not know what kind of product you are getting. So, even when that debate was brought forward, the government that I was a part of would say: No, prohibition, I do not think is the answer because these tobacco products have been around in North America - my recollection of the history of it is that they were sort of discovered here when the Europeans came and got in touch with the Indians who used to smoke tobacco, and it has been here ever since. It has been legalized because that is the way to control it and deal with it and make sure that you have some measure of controlling it.

So, you have the circumstance where others have gone down this road and others who have tried the kind of ban that is in this legislation have moved away from it because it has had those kinds of negative and adverse economic impacts. A few very simple things about the kinds of things that are in this legislation. You can protect. This legislation says you can protect the worker from an Occupational, Health and Safety point of view. This act does so. Obviously, you can protect the worker with a designated smoking room because this act says so.

This act says that the bar owners and lounge owners and so on still have the right, if they want, to put in a designated smoking room for their employees. If the government is bringing in a piece of legislation saying that it is permissible to have a designated smoking room in these establishments than they must be acknowledging that they work, because I can tell you the other school of thought from three or four years ago, from the group that would be in the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco and others. There was a strong lobby suggesting that no such ventilation system existed that could clear the air, that they did not work, therefore that could not be part of the solution because the ventilating systems could not work. Well, this government must be - by the logic that I normally use anyway - acknowledging that there must be some kind of system around that does work. Now, they say in clause 11.(b) that they are going to reserve the right respecting the independent ventilation of designated smoking rooms to make regulations saying which ones they think work and which ones do not. The regulations will come after, but they are acknowledging there must be some around that work.

I was a little puzzled a little earlier to one of the reactions to my colleague for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, when she mentioned that this legislation is going to allow for designed smoking rooms in long-term care facilities, and in hospitals, by the way, that also provide for long-term care, and in mental health institutions. I thought I saw a couple of members opposite sort of shaking their heads and saying: No, no, no, where did you get that? - unless they are going to change it. I would suggest - then again, unless we cannot read, that it absolutely says in hospitals. Let me read the section. It says: It is going to be in facilities that provide long-term care within an acute care facility. We know that there are quite a number of those in Newfoundland and Labrador; Western Memorial Hospital being the biggest one. One of the biggest issues in the Western Memorial Hospital, which is an acute care facility for Corner Brook and the whole region, is that they have too many beds tied up with long-term care patients. They are trying to build a new long-term care facility so they can move them out. What this legislation says, is that in the Western Memorial Hospital - and I believe the Acting Minister of Health and Community Services will even admit that is a hospital.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Western Memorial. He says: Yes, it's a hospital.

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not say, yes. When I get up, I will speak on it.

MR. GRIMES: Okay. So, you are going to get up and say no, are you?

MR. SULLIVAN: You got your chance. You will get an opportunity to hear me.

MR. GRIMES: I am just asking for clarification now, Madam Speaker. The combative and argumentative Minister of Finance, who is the Acting Minister of Health and Community Services, wants to try to suggest now somehow that Western Memorial Hospital is not a hospital. Well, he better talk to the people from Corner Brook; he better talk to the people from Deer Lake; he better talk to the people from the Northern Peninsula; he better talk to the people from Stephenville, who, up until a couple of weeks ago, were going to see their hospital closed and that is where they are going to have to go for all of their immediate acute care needs. Maybe he should check with the Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Community Services who did the consultation and would fully acknowledge, I would tell you, that Western Memorial Hospital is an acute care institution. It is a hospital by every definition used, not only in Newfoundland and Labrador, but in the country and around the world, I would suggest to the acting minister. He would know, and so would his parliamentary secretary know, that there is an inordinate amount of long-term care going on in Western Memorial. Unless they are going to move some amendments themselves - which I heard the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi suggest that they might - then a designated smoking room is permissible in the Western Memorial Hospital, according to this legislation as written today. Surely goodness, the government would not want to participate in putting a designated smoking room into the Western Memorial Hospital unless they were confident that under the regulations in section 11, clause 11, they could make sure that it was going to vent properly, that it was going to clean the air enough, and that they were not going to expose either the long-term care residents in that hospital or the people in there in acute care, some of them having heart surgeries to stabilize them so they can come to St. John's to get the rest of it done, that he would not want to put them at risk.

There is an acknowledgment, as I see it, and I do not want to belabour that, Madam Speaker, there is an acknowledgment by the government itself that there must be some technology around today that allows designated smoking rooms to be put in place that properly clean the air to an acceptable standard. I believe they would acknowledge that.

The strangest part that I find about it all, and this, as I understand it, is probably the biggest point of departure for the Beverage Industry Association who are saying yes, those that have music and entertainment would like for their entertainers to be able to go up on the stage and perform in a smoke-free environment. They would like for their patrons to be able to come in and engage in whatever activities are in the clubs in a smoke-free environment, but they also recognize that a certain portion and percentage of their population are smokers - because they are adults, by the way. These clubs and bars that are open 12:00 o'clock in the night, there is restricted access by virtue of age because some of the activities that happen in there, only certain people are allowed to do them. You have to be nineteen years old to even get in. These nineteen-year-olds are allowed to smoke, if they like; that is not outlawed. They are allowed to consume alcoholic beverages; that is not outlawed. You are going into a restricted environment in the first instance, and they are saying a disproportionate number and percentage of their patrons are smokers. It is not only the 23 per cent that is in the population.

All of us would know this: How many friends do we know who are casual smokers, I would call it? They do not smoke at home. They do not smoke on the job, but they say there is something about it; if I go out for a couple of drinks I get the urge to have a smoke. Did anyone ever hear that before? I am saying, if they are on that side and they have never heard that before, they do not have many friends, because there are an awful lot of people for whom that is the exact circumstance. That is the one time there seems to be a little bit of temptation even for non-smokers to smoke, because maybe when they are having a drink - historically, the two seem to have gone together.

So, we have the circumstance where the government is acknowledging that designating smoking rooms, that they will sanction under clause 11.(b), can get the job done, and that there is not going to be this carry-over and this drift and this seepage of second-hand smoke from the designated smoking room out to the smoke-free space, because otherwise they would not allow in the Western Memorial Hospital. Otherwise, they would not allow it in the seniors' homes. Otherwise, they would not allow it in our mental institutions. Otherwise, they would not allow it in the bar for the employees.

There is an inconsistency, I say, Madam Speaker. That is the part that puzzles me most. Remember, I am speaking as a proud, happy non-smoker, and hope I never get the urge to take up the habit. I have managed to get by now for the last forty-two years, I think, from thirteen to fifty-five. I hope whatever few years I have left, I do not ever get the urge to smoke, and take it up, but this is not about whether I smoke or not; it is about, what is the law going to be? We have a government saying these designated smoking rooms seem to work or they would not be putting this in here. Then you have the whole issue of, I can put it in place for my employees.

Supposing you get another circumstance that has not happened but it could, hypothetical, just to make the point. Supposing my spouse or my partner or my best friend happened to be a bartender in one of these licensed establishments, and that person was a smoker. They are allowed to leave, if they get a break, during that period of time, if the company decides to put in a designated smoking room. If the operator decides to put in a designated smoking room, they are allowed to leave their work for a little bit, because they are not allowed to smoke out in the smoke-free space and have second-hand smoke impacting on the other staff or the patrons, but they are allowed to go into the decompression chamber, I will call it. They are allowed to go into that designated smoking room and they are allowed to smoke, but if that is my spouse and I want to go to say hello, I am not allowed in there. I am an adult, now. I am not going in there to smoke, because I do not smoke, but I might want to go into that designated smoking room to chat with my spouse. Do you know what happens if I go into that designated smoking room and chat with my spouse? I am guilty of some kind of offence because that is against the law. The club owner is guilty of some kind of offence for not barring me somehow from going in there. As the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi pointed out, it does not matter what the offence is. It says clearly in this law, in clause 13.(c), that if you are found guilty of an offence under this act, the board for the liquor control agency shall cancel the licence.

Those kinds of things do not seem to make a lot of sense. Madam Speaker, to try to get at them, if the government - I would be glad to hear from the minister that they might have had some more consultation since they actually distributed the act on Thursday past. If they do not introduce some amendments, we are certainly going to introduce a couple for consideration around a couple of these issues to try to make a little more logical sense of it, I would suggest.

There is one other point I would like to make. This government had said that it would be very consultative and all inclusive and so on. I think they can take some measure of credit for going out with the general principle and saying: What do you think of the next step in banning smoking in public spaces? But the other part about true consultation that the Premier promised, by the way, which is in the Blue Book, is that when you get the actually piece of legislation, when you finally determine, based on that general consultation in principle, what the new law is going to be, he promised that there would be legislative committees that would consult on the actual draft bill, because we did not know until Thursday what was in this. I was surprised to hear somebody on an Open Line program saying: Sure, this will pass in a matter of a couple of minutes in the House because the Opposition is all for it.

Someone called me, and I said: I am all for what? They said: You are all for the new smoking legislation. I said: Sure, I have not even seen it. I have not laid eyes on it. I knew there was a public consultation out there about what the next step should be, but I did not see what their concept was for designated smoking rooms. I did not see what the penalties were going to be. I did not know that it was going to suggest that it is okay in a nursing home, it is okay in a hospital, it is okay in a mental institution, it is okay in a bar for employees, but we cannot have patrons go into one of them things. You cannot have a bar where, if a Roger Grimes goes in, even as a non-smoker, and sees a place where some of my friends are smoking, obviously I am not allowed to go in there because that must be all employees.

There are some real inconsistencies that do not seem to make a lot of sense. Why there would not be some consultation now, an opportunity for people to go out - the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi says, other than what seems to be a pretty heavy-handed approach to taking the licence if there is an offence, he did not seem to see a lot wrong with it. Why not go out, now that we have actually seen the thing for all of three days, and let some other people talk about it? Because I have understood from Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador that the minister was proudly quoted as being all for this, that they now currently have some reservations about how quickly it is being brought in, that here it is now, the third week in May, and this is going to be passed into law in a couple of days, because the government can because they have the majority, and then all the new laws and rules are going to come into place on July 1. That is a lot of notice, five weeks.

We had another piece of legislation that the Minister of Justice would recall, access to information, the new freedom of information legislation that was actually introduced by the former Administration, by our government, reintroduced by the current government who now have been in office eighteen months, and a year and three months after it was introduced and passed again we were still going to say: Okay, the law is passed, but when are you going to start doing it? When is it going to take effect? They finally proclaimed it fifteen months after it became law, because they said, well, some people need some time to get used to the new concepts, get used to the new ideas, make the adjustments, and make sure they are prepared to live with that new law.

What happens here with the hospitality sector and with the Beverage Industry Association in particular, who are saying: We are all for the smoke-free spaces. We would just like for you to consider the designated smoking rooms, not only for employees but also for some patrons.

They are saying: No, no, no, we don't have time to talk about that any more. We are going to pass it this week, because we can. Get used to it, you guys. Don't come talk to us. It is coming into effect in five weeks' time. So, whatever happens to your business, too bad. Let the chips fall where they may in the industry association.

Let me make one little point again, to raise a question, because I have heard reference to the idea of patios, and not being able to do it. Let me make two points. Let me make one about patios. Legionnaires, our veterans - there is a Legion that I visit occasionally in my hometown of Grand Falls-Windsor, and another one in Botwood that I visit occasionally, and others around that I am aware of, where, what they have done themselves -

AN HON. MEMBER: Bay Roberts.

MR. GRIMES: Bay Roberts, too, I understand.

What they have done themselves - they wanted to be smoke free, because they understand the harmful effects, by the way, but these are veterans and legionnaires, some of whom cannot give up smoking - they have made their own rules. Guess what they did to accommodate all of those who did not want to be exposed to second-hand smoke? They built patios on the side of the Legion so that those who could not give up smoking, and wanted to, could go out on the patio and smoke without bothering the rest of the people who were inside the Legion.

My understanding now is, that is illegal. I think I am correct in that. I thought I heard the minister give that as an example when he held his press conference the other day. The thirty-five foot rule that is in effect here, I guess that is going to be a regulation, this twenty-five or thirty-five feet away from the entrance that you are going to have to be.

Let's look at George Street. I have heard members on the opposite side talk about George Street as a tourist attraction, have I not? Indeed, I have, a tourist attraction for other Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who visit St. John's who are going to participate in a permitted and legal activity, going into a club, maybe having a drink, listening to some music, whatever else that happens in the clubs that is legal and permitted; a tourist attraction.

I have listened to pilots who ferry airplanes overseas, not passenger them but ferry them back and forth. They are given choices, after so many hours, where they want to stop over. Do you know where they pick to stop over when they are supposed to be out of the skies for twelve or fourteen hours? St. John's. I asked them: Why do you want to stop in St. John's? Get down to George Street for a couple of hours they said. These are fellows from down in Michigan, fellows from Europe. St. John's and George Street is known in many places in the world.

If these new rules - and I think the minister might deal with this. If the new rules are there, it is thirty-five feet from this building, put in place by the government on April 1. You are not allowed to smoke within thirty-five feet of the entrance. Now, there are some people here who probably have never been on George Street. In case you have not been there, if you go outside a club on one side of the street and you have to go thirty-five feet away from the door, guess where you are? You are inside the club on the other side of the road. If you are on the other side, the same thing works. If you are on the other side and you leave the club and you have to go thirty-five feet away from the door before you are allowed to smoke, guess where you are? You are in the bar on the other side of the road.

So, I guess what they have just done is what Councillor Coombs was proposing a few years ago. He was proposing they put a dome over George Street. It is an idea, by the way, he got in Las Vegas. I have been there, where they have a dome over this whole section downtown in the old glitter gulch in Vegas, where they put these little shows, the holographs and so on, up in music. It is all enclosed. There was a concept - a former councillor from St. John's would know that. A concept proposed by current Councillor Coombs that maybe they should put a dome over the top of George Street. You will not have to put a dome over it now, you are not allowed to smoke down there anyway. So, you are not allowed to smoke in the clubs. You are not allowed to smoke on the street. In other words, if you are on George Street and you want to go for a smoke, you have to go up the other side of City Hall or you have to go down on the waterfront somewhere to have a smoke.

Now I hope somebody can tell me that there is something wrong with what I just said, because from what I heard in the press conference the other day, that is exactly the impact on George Street. So, it seems, Madam Speaker, what I am pointing out is that there is a good idea here run a little bit amuck because, again, the government does not seem to want to take these issues seriously and to listen and put themselves in a win-win situation. They could be in a situation today where there would not be a dissenting voice. Instead of that, they have representatives of a whole industry crying foul and say that this government - again, just like raw material sharing in crab, my way or the highway. Go out and do a little bit of consultation. They must have had their minds made up before they went. Do not want to look at any studies. Talking about negative and adverse economic impacts. Just do it this way. This is the way it is going to be.

Now, we will see. We will provide opportunities for amendments in the next few days and see where it goes from there. Maybe if the government was really serious about it, they might talk about putting a legislative committee out there for a few months to talk about this. I doubt that very much because that is not the style and the nature of this government. That is not what anybody has seen in eighteen months from this government, the thought that they would actually take the time to listen to the views of the people before they implement something because they have, in their judgement, decided it is time to do it.

There is the issue with respect to the DSRs. There is the issue with respect to extreme penalties, the loss of a licence. Let me give, again, an example from a few year ago. I was in an establishment on George Street a number of years ago and bumped into some people off a Portugese fishing boat - and this wasn't back in the days of the White Fleet either, I will have you know, fairly recent. Not a lot of Portugese coming here like there used to be, but they were in there. They weren't very good at English. I wasn't very good at all at Portugese but you managed to find some way to communicate. Now, those people going into a bar, they can put all the signs they want. They are used to coming from environments in Europe, that many people would know, where there is an awful lot of smoking, a lot more than is in the North American Continent, and in Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, they walk in off the street, used to smoking, do not understand the signs in English or any other language, and, as the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi before said, pure innocence on their part, just walk in with a cigarette in their hand. Now, that could not be prevented in any way, shape or form, I suppose, unless you have a bunch of people on the door, but the responsibility of the owner is to try to now educate them and get them out or, at least, make them stop smoking. But if one of these inspectors comes along and sees it, then the way this act is written as well, by the way, is you are absolutely guilty. There is no way to plead a special circumstance. There is no way to ask for understanding. There is no way to get somebody to go over and say: By the way, you see if that person speaks English. You check it out to see if they really understand the laws here. There is none of that.

In this legislation, it says if somebody smokes in the establishment that person is guilty of an offence and so is the owner of the establishment guilty. There is no provision to say that you can go in and talk about extenuating circumstances. That is the new law. So, they are guilty. Then that section says because there was an offence, the Liquor Corporation must take away their licence. No chance to explain yourself. No chance to be reasonable with anybody. You are finished. Not only do you pay the fine, but you are closed up because you just lost your liquor licence. Now, the only thing I can say about that is it does not say for how long. Maybe it is like here some days. I was asked to withdraw from this Legislature one time for the remainder of the day. I thought that was a pretty severe penalty. I missed the chance to speak for a whole day. In any event, maybe they are going to lose their licence for half an hour or until they get the smoker outside of the premises. I use that, and I exaggerate it to make the point that it does not seem to be that well thought out, and it does seem to be a bit extreme and a bit severe.

What we have is a circumstance where even the owner of a bar in Stephenville, who was on a radio program last week saying I support it. He said, I own this place and I have been looking forward to actually being able to go to work in a smoke-free bar. He said, but the thing I could not understand - he said, I was assuming because I know a goodly number of my patrons are smokers, that my plan was to build a patio on the back so I could tell my smoking patrons: You are not allowed to smoke in here now gang, but I just built a brand new patio on the back for you, where you can go out and smoke. Now I am told by the acting minister: No, sir, you are not allowed to smoke out there either.

So, there are a series of issues. The workers can be protected without going to this extreme. The issue of the whole thing can be done. Then there is the question that I have to raise because I am planning on going to a couple over the summer. Despite all of this - some of it being a bit over the top in my view, overkill - is the idea again of swatting a fly, I suppose, with a sledgehammer instead of with a fly swatter. You have the notion that despite all of that, the government is going to reserve the right in the Cabinet, not back here in this Legislature - I am fine with that, too - the Cabinet - not even the full caucus, by the way. So, some of you, don't get excited if you have a say in this. This is the Cabinet. This is the real government of one. This is the Cabinet of one that is going to decide that every now and then this law about not smoking in these public places can be set aside completely for special events.

I can tell you, in my hometown in the summer they think that the Splash, the Salmon Festival is a special event. It is a big open field, by the way. It is out on the baseball field. They have a concert stand built, but it is an excluded entry place because it is all chained off. You have security. You have to have a ticket to get in. It is very hard to sneak in. They get a liquor licence for the special event. They set up a beer tent and all those kinds of things. The same thing at the Klondike Festival, I am hoping to visit again in Bay Roberts. A huge success. A great addition to the tourism thing and so on.

Of course what you have - I am assuming that kind of an event is going to be a special event and you are going to be allowed to smoke out there somewhere. In the current definition of a public place, by the way, that whole concert venue matches the definition of a public place under this act, which means you are not allowed to smoke anywhere in there. So, there is a tract of land which includes a soccer pitch, a baseball field, a softball field, another open field, a bandstand at the end. There must be acres and acres of land in Grand Falls-Windsor, and because it is a public place under the definition of this act, there will be no smoking nowhere. It is all outdoors by the way. There is no roof or anything over any of it. All outdoors. A little roof over the bandstand. There is not going to be any smoking unless it is a special event.

Not only that - I guess they will find a way around that - what they have done in the last few years is actually have a restricted beer tent area because you did not want people drinking all over the place where there were young people and so on, so there was a restricted area for drinking. Then, of course, everybody else, because it is open to the general public, the same as at the Klondike Festival. They will find a way around that, but then you can have special events, by the way, inside your buildings. So, if the whole idea is a health issue and if you have some designated smoking rooms, what kind of event is going to be declared a special event where you can have certain areas, certain buildings or parts of buildings, exempt from the application of the act?

Now under the old act, which is being repealed as a result of this, if my family was involved in, say, a wedding - and I hope to be soon because my daughter is planning still to be married at the end of the summer, in September. If we rented out a place and had a private function, the person who rented the place, I think, under the old act could determine whether there was going to be smoking permitted or not. Because for the purpose of the act, they then own the facility because they had rented it. It was the same then as if it was their home, for the purposes of that number of hours, because I bought it. I bought it for a certain number of hours. So it was the party that had done the rental who determine whether or not there was going to be smoking and whereabouts in the premises because it was no longer open to the public. I imagine they are going to have to find some ways to deal with that, but if we are so concerned, as we say, about second-hand smoke, why would you allow that to occur? All of it can be taken care of in any of these public places by having designated smoking rooms, which the government agrees that must work, and then they can go in the designated smoking room, whether the thing is rented or whether it is open to the general public.

One last comment I will make is this, Madam Speaker. The idea, as well, that I find - this is me, personally now - a little bit strange, and it is a definition in section 4.(t). Section 4.(1), by the way, says, "A person shall not smoke in..." any of these circumstances. The one I find a bit strange in the little bit of research that I have done about other jurisdictions that have already done this in Canada - because others have gone down this road, and we usually benefit from the experience and take the advice - you cannot smoke in "(t) a private club to which a member or invited person has access...".

I believe, if I am not mistaken, that has been put into legislation in other provinces and challenged and found to be anti-constitutional, against the charter. So, why would we put it in here? Because here is the notion now. Let me just make this argument, Madam Speaker, just for a minute. Smoking tobacco products is a permitted activity for people above and beyond a certain age. Now, why would we not, if I decided I wanted to try a business venture to cater to the 23 per cent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who want to smoke, even though they know the ill effects of it, they want to smoke, they have made a conscious adult decision to smoke, they have a right to smoke, and I would say, okay, because most of these other places are going to be now smoke free, I think I am going to try and set up a business for the smokers.

The idea would be that it cannot be a public place, because that is covered by this act. I will start a private club. I will build a facility myself, and the only way that you can get in, you have to pay a membership, you have to tell me who you are. I decide, I guess, as the owner, what the membership fee is going to be for the year or whatever it is. Then, in fact, the people who come in there, smokers can come in there because it is private; it is not open to the general public. If Joe Blow or Joanie Blow come up to the door and say, I want to come into your club, I say: No sir, no ma'am, this is a private club. You have to be a member to get in here.

Now, I know what the government is going to say about it. The government is going to say that in other jurisdictions the way they have gotten around that is, they have charged a cover charge instead of an annual membership, and they took your name and said: Okay, you can be a member for the next two hours - but there are ways to deal with that too. If you are serious about it, and if you go and find out that is the circumstance, you can deal with that.

I always believed, because I am not a smoker, I do believe that unless we are going to make it illegal completely that smokers have to have some rights, folks. Unless it is going to be illegal and not permitted to smoke in the land, in the Province, in the country, don't we owe some obligation to people who are smokers to allow them to accommodate themselves somehow? Unless we are going to go to the next step and abolish smoking all together, which I do not recommend, by the way, because of the issues I have dealt with earlier.

I will not belabor it at this point, Madam Speaker, but we will be introducing some amendments at the Committee stage in a future time in this debate. I believe there are some opportunities here for the government to change from what is now seen to be a circumstance that is unnecessarily confrontational with a certain sector, that has clearly had negative and adverse economic impacts in other places where it has been brought in, in this manner, that does not respect in any way, shape or form the rights of smokers, which is a legal and permitted activity in the Province, and that it can be a win-win situation, instead of again having a government with a good initiative, which is the logical next step, butting heads with people who have come to the conclusion that - by the way, the same group, the Beverage Industry Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, I would say, even three or four years ago, would not have agreed to this. They probably would not even have agreed to designated smoking rooms.

Here you have a government today in a circumstance that you could only wish for: that the owners of the facilities and the operations themselves are saying, let us do a smoking room that you, by the very virtue of putting it in legislation, agree works, and we will be out praising the government, instead of out saying we have been ignored and you are about to ruin another sector, you are about to demolish another sector, you are about to have hundreds of people laid off again in Newfoundland and Labrador because you just will not listen.

I think I have made the points that I wanted to make at this stage, Madam Speaker, fairly clearly, and I hope that we are getting some kind of a hearing from the government with respect to this, and that we might even get some real hearing and understanding and some acceptance of some of the various amendments that we will move at the Committee stage as we continue to debate this very important piece of legislation.

Thank you again, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to express these views.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I find it a little hypocritical that a person who was Premier of this Province when they brought in legislation designating smoking rooms, that is now in effect and is the law of today, would take a different tact right now, just four years later, to try to play to a bunch of people on this particular issue that is very serious issue for people in our Province to have to be subjected to.

To go out and speak here for minutes after minutes that we are bringing in regulations for a thirty-five foot ban, or twenty-five, absolutely false. To tell the people of this Province that information, lead them to believe that, is absolutely false. That is what it is. Why should he be telling people that, Madam Speaker, when he knows that it is not here? He never asked was it there. He did not ask what the intention is, and to tell people now, on George Street, if you go thirty-five feet you walk into the next establishment. There is absolutely nothing here to indicate that outside the licence of that premises you cannot smoke.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: I knew he was getting into that. (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I intend to listen to every word that the minister says, and I ask the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to control himself just for a minute.

My point of order is this, Mr. Speaker: I used the thirty-five feet because the only regulation I am aware of that the government has been involved in so far for entrances from public spaces and buildings is this building, where it is thirty-five feet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. There is a disagreement, but it is not a point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues, I am asking for your co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, and Acting Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is unfair when somebody makes reference to that, that there is no intent to bring in at all. That is absolutely unfair, and it is not putting the right information out to the people of this Province. He could have asked. He did not ask. He wasn't interested in finding out. That is absolutely, unequivocally, false, and you should not be saying information that is false here in this Legislature.

The second point, Mr. Speaker, is another issue that he stated in this House that is false and shows he did not read the bill. It showed he did not read the bill, because if you look at section (f) in the bill - and my colleague from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, too, I want to bring this to his attention; he did make reference to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, it is a policy of government, I understand, that it must be roughly thirty-five feet here. It is not built into the bill or into a regulation that is going to have that apply in this specific instance in that case. If they want to bring in their policies for particular areas in dealing with it, that is different.

Another point that he is misleading the people on -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I caution the members here about language. We should use words like inaccurate. I caution them against using a word like misleading.

The hon. the Minister.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will use a different word. I do know deliberately misleading is unparliamentary, but I will use another word. I did not use the word deliberately, but the other point that is not accurate is saying that automatically if you go into an establishment and somebody is smoking their licence is suspended. That is wrong. That shows they did not read the bill.

In clause 8 of that bill, the Leader of the Opposition said that it says, "Where an inspector finds that an operator, employer or owner of a workplace, public place or facility is not complying with a provision of this Act or a regulation made under this Act the inspector may order the operator, employer or owner, or a person whom the inspector believes to be in charge to comply with the provision and may require the order to be carried out immediately or within the period of time that the inspector specifies."

They may not be charged. They do not have to be automatically charged in that case, but if they are, they may be told that they are not complying and to do something about it, either immediately or within the next twenty minutes, or the next day, or don't let it happen again, whatever that may be. That is not an automatic suspension of a licence, and to let people in this Province know that -

MR. REID: It could be!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: ‘Coulds' are not ‘shalls', I might say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. He should know that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I also remind members on both sides that second reading is a time of debating a bill in terms of principle. We should leave the details of clauses and that kind of analysis for Committee of the Whole instead of doing that detailed analysis now. This is second reading. We are talking about the principles of the legislation.

The hon. the Minister.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

By mentioning those things in clause 8, that obviously they were not aware of, it may cause them to look at an amendment a lot differently because they are now aware that it is not shall anymore. They may charge. They may decide not to charge. They might want to give you a second chance or give you a time frame. That was not articulated by the Leader of the Opposition. That is giving a false impression to people.

I will close, Mr. Speaker, by indicating that on November 24, in this House, the Official Opposition tabled a resolution that supports what we are doing. Here is what it said. It said: "Whereas second-hand smoke is a health hazard that has caused..." -

MR. REID: You are at it again, buddy. You are at it again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking members on my right for their co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the minister to make his presentation.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will read the resolution in its entirety and let people draw their own conclusions.

The resolution that was submitted in this House on November 24 by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair said:

WHEREAS second-hand smoke is a health hazard that has caused serious health problems, death and a strain on the health care system; and

WHEREAS the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities has called upon government to enact a provincial ban to see a 100 per cent smoke-free environment in public buildings, including bars and bingo halls; and

WHEREAS community groups such as the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco, the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, the Music Industry Association, the Federation of Labour and other organizations have been calling upon government to implement a ban; and

WHEREAS government has already banned smoking in schools, hospitals, daycare centres, public buildings and restaurants;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly support a ban to provide 100 per cent protection from second-hand smoke in all public places, including bars and bingo halls.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I now move second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 20, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Smoking In Public Places And The Workplace, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Smoking In Public Places And The Workplace. (Bill 20)

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Smoking In Public Places And The Workplace," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 20)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House now adjourn until tomorrow, Tuesday, May 17 at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved that this House do now adjourn until tomorrow, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

The motion is that the House now stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, May 17 at 1:30 p.m.