MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we would like to welcome twenty-five Grade 12 students from Queen Elizabeth Regional High School in the District of Conception Bay South. They are accompanied by their teacher, and their visit is part of their World Studies course.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde; the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for the District of Conception Bay South; and the hon. the Member for the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been called by the hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I do not want to interrupt the time for members' statements but, as we know, yesterday, through the news, there has been the passing of a former Member of the Legislature and a former Cabinet Minister, Ms Patricia Cowan. I am sure that members opposite will speak to that a little later, but, out of respect and for the opportunity for members to attend her funeral service occurring at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, I believe myself, the Opposition House Leader, and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the New Democratic Leader, have reached an arrangement by where tomorrow, which would be normally Private Members' Day, will be a regular government day beginning at 1:30 p.m. as opposed to 2:00 p.m. Then, on Thursday, the House will not open at 1:30 p.m. to allow members the opportunity to attend her funeral service and to pay respects to her and the contributions she has made to public life in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I believe I have the concurrence of members opposite on that, and they will speak to that, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the funeral for the late Patricia Cowan is slated for Thursday afternoon at 2:00 p.m. and, in view of that scheduling, we requested of the Government House Leader if they would consent to that request. We appreciate the fact the government has, and, rather than lose a day - it was the Opposition's Private Members' Day on Wednesday - we will waive that day and simply take our Wednesday now to do government business on Wednesday.

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

MR. HARRIS: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we would confirm that there would be unanimous consent to such a move to allow myself and others to attend the funeral of Patt Cowan, which is somewhere I would like to be on Thursday, to show my respect for her contribution to the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank hon. members for their consideration, and the House of Assembly establishment will govern itself accordingly.

The hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to stand in this hon. House to recognize the efforts of the Exploits Disability Association.

Mr. Speaker, May 26 to June 1 is Disability-Ability Week and its purpose is to promote independent living for those experiencing physical or mental disadvantages in life. This project was cancelled nationally several years ago; however, this is the only network that has continued with its awareness week and they have done so under the leadership of Dorothy Piercey and Linda Stuckless.

This awareness week is about getting people to understand why inclusion is important, and recognize the abilities of people with disabilities. There will be a full week of activities, including a parade and a kickoff breakfast on May 27 at the Anglican Church Hall in Bishop's Falls.

Mr. Speaker, this year's theme is "Hand in Hand, We All Succeed" and I would ask all members of this House to put your hands together in recognizing the efforts of the Exploits Disability Association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Central United Church in Bay Roberts who celebrated their one hundredth anniversary on Saturday, May 6. The Anniversary Committee chose as their motto this year, "Journey of Faith". It was a pleasure to join 200 other guests to take part in the celebration, and extend best wishes for the future.

Mr. Speaker, in the early 1990s there were two Methodist Churches in Bay Roberts, but the congregations agreed to build one central church. This very beautifully decorated church, with tin ceilings that were painted and decorated by local residents, has a seating capacity to hold a congregation of approximately 1,000 people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating the organizing committee and the congregation of Central United Church in Bay Roberts on celebrating their one hundredth anniversary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on April 13, I had the pleasure of attending the Literacy Day Event hosted by Epiphany Elementary in Heart's Delight. There were many events scheduled for the day which encouraged the children to showcase their talents in four categories: writing, reading, math and art.

Fun was certainly a part of the event, Mr. Speaker. This included promoting a contest to improve school work, and the winner or winners would be able to shave off the beard of a very brave teacher, Mr. Darrell Yetman, as well as each student receiving a block of fabric to do their own art work and later having a quit constructed from the blocks.

I would certainly like to congratulate Jordan Reid, Brooklyn St. George, Hilary Underhay and Kelsey Worthman as the winners of the beard shaving contest.

Mr. Speaker, this is only the second annual literacy day held at Epiphany, and this event was greatly supported by the area as a whole. Many people attended to experience the day with the children, demonstrating that learning is not only for the children at school but it is a family experience as well. Mr. Speaker, I truly enjoyed reading to the children, and their excitement with the learning experience was very gratifying to see.

I would like to pass along my sincere appreciation to Patti Collins Yetman and staff and students at Epiphany Elementary for organizing such a special event, and I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join with me in extending to them their congratulations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate the Southern Labrador Development Association and their office manager, Peggy Hancock, on organizing and accessing a client services representative position for the Southern Labrador Coastal area.

I also want to acknowledge the efforts and the contribution of the late Wayne Earle, who lobbied for several years to have this position secured for the region.

A young woman by the name of Zita Pike of West St. Modeste has now been hired as the representative for Service Canada Community Partner Site at the E.M. Taylor Resource Centre in Forteau.

Mr. Speaker, with the addition of Ms Pike, the office will be able to provide one-stop, easy access to government programs and services regardless of where you live between Cartwright and L'Anse au Clair. Also, Ms Pike will provide employment assistant services and help people with job searches, resumes and funding for school. The office will also help people find and download information and forms for birth certificates, pensions, Employment Insurance, taxes, business information and other services.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, this position will indeed be taking a lot of pressure off the MHA, who has been diligently working on all of these issues for a long period of time. So, it is a welcome addition for me.

I would like to ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join me in congratulating the Southern Labrador Development Association on improving the services for the residents of my district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate the Kelligrews Kiwanis Club on marking its fiftieth anniversary. Last evening, I attended the club's annual flipper dinner, which was the kickoff event for their anniversary celebrations.

The Kelligrews Kiwanis has had a significant impact on the community over the last fifty years. To see an example of its many contributions, one only has to look at the minor softball field located next to the club, and their commitment to the youth of the area is very evident.

Their recent fundraising drive included the raising of funds to purchase a new ambulance for the St. John Ambulance Brigade in Conception Bay South. And, of course, the Kiwanis Club is the host of the famous annual Kelligrews Soiree. However, last evening there were no pigs feet or cats meat, but there was certainly enough flipper to make Sir Paul blush.

I ask all hon. members to join me in recognizing the contributions of the Kelligrews Kiwanis Club and congratulate them on their fiftieth anniversary.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Kerri-Ann Evely of Carbonear, who was inducted into the Athletic Honour Society at Memorial University of Newfoundland's forty-sixth annual athletes banquet.

The society recognizes graduating students and athletes who have made an outstanding contribution to the athletic program at Memorial University. Membership in the Athletic Honour Society is the highest athletic award presented to a MUN student.

Kerri-Ann also picked up the university's Wrestler of the Year Award. She competed in and won several matches throughout the wrestling season and in January Kerri-Ann attended a training camp in San Diego.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Kerri-Ann Evely of Carbonear on being inducted into the Athletic Honour Society of Memorial University and wish her every success upon her graduation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today and am pleased to inform this House that full-time international students studying at Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic can now apply for an Off-Campus Work Permit.

Previously, these students could only work on campuses at which they were studying. Local employers did not have access to this pool of talented individuals, who bring valuable skills and global connections to the workplace.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada has signed agreements with the provinces and has recently changed its policy. International students can now seek employment in the Province where they live while studying. They may work off-campus up to twenty hours per week during the school year and work full-time during study breaks. In addition to supplementing their income, they can gain Canadian work experience and better integrate into our labour force.

Students here and across Canada have been encouraging this policy change, Mr. Speaker. During consultations for our provincial immigration strategy, we heard that local students wanted the government to allow this off-campus work. This agreement benefits approximately 850 full-time students at Memorial University and College of the North Atlantic whom already make a considerable contribution both economically and culturally to our Province.

Mr. Speaker, this is a positive step forward, providing benefits for the students themselves, for our post-secondary institutions, for all local labour markets and, indeed, for our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the hon. minister for giving me an advanced copy of his statement. I think it is good news. I think our two institutions, Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic, have a great reputation in international circles in terms of providing training and providing all kinds of resources to people around the world. We are attracting more and more foreign students to our campuses.

I guess, the only change I would make in the Ministerial Statement would be that, in addition to supplementing their income they gain Canadian work experience and can better integrate into our labour force, and also into our society. I attended universities from outside our Province, and I think it is very, very important that education is not just in the classrooms, it is not just in the workshops, but it is also getting out and integrating into society and becoming part of it.

We, in Newfoundland and Labrador, are very generous people and I think our foreign students should become well aware of Newfoundland and Labrador as a distinctive place to live and to learn and to work. We should encourage students to not only come here to go to the university and the College of the North Atlantic, but to integrate and set up residence within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is certainly a very welcome change in policy on behalf of the Government of Canada with the co-operation of the Province. It will allow for the international students, who are paying significantly higher tuition than local students, Mr. Speaker, to have better joy opportunities within the Province, but also a fuller experience of life in Canada and in Newfoundland and Labrador. For our own people to be able to get to know these international students better and the different cultures and nationalities that they bring to our provincial mix is a good experience for the people in the Province as well.

I think it is a very positive step forward and I look forward to seeing these young people from around the world in our workplaces around the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers.

Oral Questions.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, under the FPI Act government has the authority to tell FPI what it can and cannot do. I will list a couple of these things that we can tell FPI to do. For example, no one in FPI can control any more than 15 per cent of the shares of that company. The majority of the Board of Directors has to be made up of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. The Act also states that the headquarters of FPI has to be located in the Province. In fact, when we amended the Act back in 2002, the All-Party Committee, we put in a provision or a clause that stated that regardless of what we did to FPI, FPI would not be in a position where they could sue the government. It is called a privative clause.

Mr. Speaker, considering the control we have over that company, and if we can control the company's actions, I ask the Premier: Why can't we control its assets, for example its fish quotas?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, all of the items that the hon. member referred to, with the exception of the last one, are items that rest with the Province constitutionally. For example, issuing processing licences, that is a constitutional right of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but issuing quota, or taking back quota, or telling a company where to land its quota, is not a right of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The hon. member knows that. It is a constitutional right in the division of powers that is assigned to the Government of Canada.

Now, we can lobby the Government of Canada. We can talk with the Government of Canada. We have done all that. I think the federal minister has made it clear where he stands in terms of the use it or lose it approach to FPI quotas; but, in the final analysis, Mr. Speaker, it is not within the purview and the authority of this Legislature or this government to legislate on quotas.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I beg to differ with the minister, and I would ask him to put forward a legal opinion or show us a legal opinion that says that we cannot control FPI through the Legislature, including its quotas.

Mr. Speaker, now that he said he has talked to the Minister of Fisheries in Ottawa, Mr. Loyola Hearn, and he has had discussions with him, I ask him a simple question: Did you ask the federal minister, Mr. Hearn, to intervene to prevent FPI from taking fish quotas from towns like Harbour Breton and Fortune, yes or no?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman can ask his question any way he like, I have no control over that, but neither is he going to dictate to me how I will answer the question, with a yes or a no or a maybe or an if.

The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that we have had numerous discussions with the federal minister on many occasions since they took power, I do not know what it is, two or three months ago now, on the sourcing of fish quota to operators in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The minister, I think, has publicly opinioned from time to time on the use it or lose it concept that he has articulated, and that relates to FPI as it relates to any other company that have fish quotas in waters adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, I know I cannot dictate to him but you did not answer the question with a yes, no, maybe or an if. You did not answer the question at all. I asked you simply, did you ask him to intervene to stop those quotas from going out of Harbour Breton or Fortune, and you did not answer the question.

I will ask you another one: Did the minister, in his discussions with Mr. Hearn, ask him if he would give the provincial government, which controls FPI through an act in this Legislature, did you ask him to give this government the authority to determine where those quotas are going to be processed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, again, I cannot control the flights of fantasy that the Leader of the Opposition might engage in, but the fact of the matter is, he knows, everybody in Newfoundland knows, the people in Harbour Breton know, the people in Fortune know, the people in Marystown know, the people in other communities around know, that those quotas are assigned to a company. They are not assigned to a community.

Now, should there be community quotas? Maybe, but the fact of the matter is, the reality of the matter is, right now the quotas that used to be assigned to National Sea, we were able to purchase and have them repatriated to Arnold's Cove. I think that is good public policy. When we speculate on doing that, in terms of the FPI operation, the Leader of the Opposition comes down on us like a ton of bricks.

Mr. Speaker, you cannot have it both ways. You are either for that as a public policy option or you are not. So, yes, that is one option and there are many others that we are exploring.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the minister continues to dodge the issue. I asked him earlier if they could control the quotas and he said, no, that control rests with the federal government. I asked him if he asked the federal government if they would lend some support in enabling this government to control where the quotas are processed, and he dodged the issue. That is what has been happening to this issue for the last fourteen or fifteen months. We never hear answers. So, I will ask him about something totally different and see if we can get an answer to a question.

The minister knows that crab plants on the Island portion of the Province will close the end of May, because of the regulation by the federal Minister of Fisheries. We also know that by the end of June many of the crab plants in Labrador will be closed, leaving many, if not all, of crab plant workers in the Province without enough hours to qualify for EI this winter. We also know, because of market conditions, that crab harvesters and their crew members, and shrimp harvesters and their crew members, are going to have such a rough year that many of them will not survive in the fishing industry.

I ask the minister - a lot of that falls under your purview - do you have a plan in place to deal with the devastation that plant workers and harvesters and crew members are going to be facing before the end of this fishing season?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, out of all of that, at the end of it, there was something that sounded like a question. It was more of a speech, as far as I am concerned, and not a very good one at that.

The fact of the matter is that we are certainly aware of what is happening in the marketplace in terms of crab, and shrimp for that matter. We have already had discussions in terms of the possibility of a May 30 or May 31, whatever days there are in May, close down. We have expressed the view that if there is still quota uncaught at the end of that period of time, if there is not a major problem with softshell, than we are of the view that the fishery should be allowed to continue as far as crab is concerned.

In terms of any other plans, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to announce plans for an event that has not yet happened, but I can tell you that the government is very, very much aware and on top of what is happening in the fishing industry in all parts of Newfoundland and Labrador and in all sectors.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not think there has been a day in this session of the House where someone opposite has not tried to insult me - and I say, tried to insult me - by the comments that they made, but I tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am still going to ask the questions on behalf of the people of this Province, especially those in the fishing industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot lately about buying into offshore oil resources, we hear a lot lately about going it alone on the Lower Churchill and anyone listening in this Province knows full-well, or it certainly would seem, that we are flush with cash and you are willing to do all these things. Why aren't you willing to put your money where your mouth is and do something for the people who are finding it difficult in the fishing industry?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Leader of the Opposition has developed an awful thin skin over recent days. You cannot say a thing to him. You cannot remind him that he is whistling past a graveyard, that the sky is not falling, as he hopes it is. When you remind him of that: Oh, you are attacking him personally, you are upsetting his feelings. I called him a sooky baby the other night, Mr. Speaker, he just about hit the ceiling. The hon. Leader of the Opposition from time to time acts like a sook, asks questions like a sook, and when he asks questions like a sook, he will be responded to like a sook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We saw total chaos with winter preparation due to the closure of thirteen highway depots and the lay off of over 100 personnel last year.

I ask the minister: With $6 million in your budget for possible land acquisition, which the minister himself said may not be used, will the minister commit today to use $1.3 million to keep these thirteen depots open and make our highways safe before it is too late, like last year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as for the condition of our roads and the safety of our highways, we put $60 million into improving the safety of our highways this year.

We are not interested in putting $1.3 million in there to deal with the issues that he is talking about, Mr. Speaker. We are interested in putting $60 million into the roads budget, up from $22 million when they were the government. We are interested in putting $10 million into our heavy equipment fleet, up from $3 million when they were the government. We are interested in increasing the size of the budget for painting lines on the road, up by $1.5 million or $2 million again this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: We are interested, Mr. Speaker, in the $2 million in additional funds that we have allotted this year, budgeted this year, for sand and salt purchases so that our people who work on the highways and the people who travel on the highways have access to the kind of products and the amount of products and the level of equipment that they need in order to service the people of this Province. That is what we are interested in!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will ask the Member for Baie Verte: Should he be concerned about the highways depot? I will ask the Member for Exploits, should he be concerned? All the calls you got. So, when the minister stands up, you are not concerned about laying off 100 people?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to get to his question now, please.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It just upsets me when he is not concerned about the layoffs.

I ask the minister: In the budget there will no reductions in winter staff, will there be any further reductions in winter maintenance or staff for this coming winter?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, for the record it is not 100 people that were laid off, it was ninety. For the record, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: - the $1.5 million that was saved in salaries has been reallocated in the budget for supplies, so that we can buy guardrails, so that we can buy culverts, so that we can buy asphalt, so that we can buy posts, so that we can buy all of the supplies, Mr. Speaker, that they did not buy when they were in the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: That is what we are doing with our budget. That is how we are investing in the infrastructure in our Province and that is how we are running our maintenance program.

As for the winter maintenance program, Mr. Speaker, there have been no changes in the winter maintenance program, I would say, in about two decades. The number of people who are operating our equipment, the number of people who are on the roads, the amount of equipment that is on the roads right now, Mr. Speaker, has been relatively unchanged since about 1984.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Great rhetoric, Mr. Speaker. Great rhetoric.

I have been informed that plow operators in Clarenville and Burin were notified that there will be reductions in the number of operators. In Grand Bank, the workers will decline from five to three. Each operator will be responsible for 30 kilometres of highway. Is this what the minister means by no more reduction in winter services?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to provide me with the information that he has then I will gladly accept it and I will gladly look into it. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that at the executive level for the Department of Transportation and Works, at the minister's level and at the Cabinet level, there have been no decisions made to change the level of operations on our winter maintenance program, the level of staffing on our winter maintenance program. As a matter of fact, the $10 million - $7 million more than was in their budget when they were the government - for new vehicle acquisitions is to improve the winter maintenance program in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: I thank the minister, only I wish I could believe him.

Last year when I showed him the work report on a piece of equipment in the department, not even on the road, he denied the report ever existed until he had to go down and check it out himself. So what is the use to give you information, you will not do anything about it anyway?

These layoffs are causing major concerns for summer road maintenance. These depots are located in rural Newfoundland and Labrador where employment is difficult, if not impossible to find - and we know the minister does not care, you already said that.

Why are you laying off these individuals, throwing them and their families lives into chaos, while creating more unemployment in rural Newfoundland and Labrador? Is this part of your government strategy for rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I did not say I did not care. If you want to look at an investment in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, how about checking out $38 million more in investment in our road's infrastructure in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, up from $22 million when they were the government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: How about looking at the $60 million that we are spending? How about looking at the additional $7 million that we are spending on equipment in rural Newfoundland and Labrador? The total roads budget for this government is about $142 million. Where is that being spent? One-point-five-million dollars of it is being spent up on Kenmount Road. The rest of it is being spent in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: If you want to talk about a commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, check out the $1.5 million that is in the Budget for vessel design. Check out that, and next year, please God, there will be two vessels under construction in this Province, as opposed to running off to Estonia to buy a rust bucket like that government did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That sounds pretty good, but when you cannot have your equipment operating on the road because it is not up to standard, this just makes no difference. You know it, Mr. Minister. The Member for Baie Verte knows it. The Member for Exploits knows it.

Mr. Speaker, we heard the minister state last November that projects and tenders will be called early in the new year to ensure that work will be completed this summer. This was, of course, after a $12 million carryover from their previous year.

Will the minister table in the House a list of projects tendered and approved for this construction season?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if the member was so concerned about the level of equipment readiness in the Department of Transportation and Works his government would have put more than $3 million into new vehicle acquisition. We are putting $10 million into new vehicle acquisition. That is $7 million worth of new equipment over and above what they were buying when they were there, Mr. Speaker. We are going to have our equipment in the best shape it has been in a long, long time.

As for the list of projects that have been tendered and contracts awarded, go on the government website, it is all there. If he hasn't got the capacity, I tell him he can contact my EA or somebody in my department and they will gladly get it for him, if he doesn't know how to use the computer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

I understand there will be a number of cancer patients sent out of the Province this week for treatment, treatment that the government failed to provide.

Can the minister tell me how many of these patients will be referred outside the Province, to Princess Margaret Hospital in Ontario, and how much of the cost will be incurred by the Department of Health and Community Services?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I spoke with the Director of Radiation Oncology on this issue in the last week or so. It is not uncommon when a doctor feels that a patient's best interests will be served by not having to wait. They will not keep someone waiting, but will make arrangements for them to move outside the Province; just like Cleveland, Ohio, when the former government was in. We sent people down there and they spent a period of time, with a positive experience coming back from these people too, from the treatment and service they got.

Our priority, Mr. Speaker, is to advance the level of service to people where they can get that service. If it can't be provided here because of equipment that wasn't replaced by that former government, who let it run into the ground, it is breaking down - we have committed to putting millions of dollars into two new bunkers and getting new equipment in because they did nothing for a number of years. If we have to do something in the short term because of their inability to deal with the problem or their refusal to deal with the problem, we will do what is necessary in the best interests of the patients and the people here in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister failed to answer the question I asked.

It is my understanding that the government will pay 100 per cent of the cost for all cancer patients being referred outside the Province for treatment.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I can't hear myself talk because of the comments from the Premier and the opposite side.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: I am trying to ask a very serious question, Mr. Speaker.

I understand, although the minister failed to answer, that the costs of these patients are being paid for at 100 per cent by the government if you are referred outside the Province. We all know that cancer patients who live in Newfoundland and Labrador, who are being referred to St. John's for treatment, are doing so and having to pay for this themselves.

I have to ask: Why is there a double standard for those patients who need treatment, whether it is in the Province or outside?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my understanding that the arrangements for patients going outside the Province now are the same as the arrangements that you, as a former government, instituted when you moved them to Cleveland, Ohio. Exactly the same arrangements. Now, they are on that side of the House and they do not like the arrangements they followed. It is my understanding that we are following the same arrangement, and that is paying for the costs of people who have to go out to get this treatment.

That former government, Mr. Speaker, would not pay for patients even within Labrador to get treatment in areas. We brought in a budget to allow people in Labrador West to be treated like people in Northern Labrador, Southern Labrador, that you, sitting in the district, representing that area, ignored as Minister of Health and we had to do something about it.

We are trying to get equity and fair treatment for everybody in our Province within the resources to deliver that. We have made tremendous strides, Mr. Speaker, and this year put $180 million new dollars into health care in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister might like to talk about how people in Labrador and everywhere else in this Province have 100 per cent coverage because of cancer treatment. He is wrong.

Let me ask him this question: There is a young boy at the Health Sciences Centre today, Mr. Speaker, with cancer. He and his parents are living there, and will have to live there in a hostel for up to eight months, paying $50 a day without support and subsidy from your government, Sir. Can you tell me that is fair?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it would be very unfair to talk about any individual's personal health, their situation or families, and I am not going to talk about it here in this House. If she expects to get an answer here, she will not get it from me on that.

I will tell you what we have done in health care: We have put significant money into health care. Talk about Labrador, that she represents, dialysis was put into Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: When they had to relocate and come here to the Province, some people were heartbroken because they had to leave their home and come here to get dialysis treatment. Now, in the future, they are going to be able to get it in Labrador.

I could spend a whole day, all of Question Period, two Question Periods, adding up what we have done that they refused to do in government: hospitals in Labrador West; long-term care in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. We have advanced dialysis in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. We have done umpteen things to improve it with transportation and otherwise in all of Labrador and all parts of this Province because we are concerned about everybody in our Province regardless of where they live, unlike those people when they were on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, paramedics of the Health Sciences Centre provide services to about 170,000 people in this area. They handle 45 per cent of the ambulatory calls in the Province. When that minister was in Opposition, he gave paramedics in this Province his full support, Mr. Speaker, to do whatever they needed to beef up their programs. Still, today, the government opposite is failing to deal with the issues that have been raised by these paramedics, so I have to ask the minister: Make good on your commitment of three-and-a-half years ago and give these paramedics the services that they are asking for today.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I never gave a commitment to anybody in my political life, in my district or anywhere, that I would do something.

MS JONES: Yes, you did.

MR. SULLIVAN: The only commitment I gave is that I will work toward getting results.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I will answer the question if she wants. If she wants the question answered -

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A question has been asked.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In 2000-2001, that period of time, there was an increase in ambulances by one point four patients per day in ambulances in the Province. In 2003 there was an increase, a unit put on from four to twelve, one extra unit put on, and an extra twelve hours on Saturday, where the amount has gone up by one point four.

This government allocates money to health care corporations, $1,390,000,000 this year, Mr. Speaker. We do not any of these regional integrated health authorities how many nurses to put on a floor, how many doctors to put in a hospital, how many LPNs to schedule, or how many paramedics or ambulances to schedule. We provide money to health authorities and they provide a level of service that is within the acceptable standards of service provided. We do not micromanage every single thing in a budget, and neither should we do it. The next thing she is going to stand and say: Why isn't there one more nurse on a floor in a particular hospital?

That is a role of integrated health authorities. (Inaudible) people to carry out that job, and that is the way (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Labrador West.

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

My question is for the Premier, concerning yesterday's announcement about taking the lead in the Lower Churchill which, I say, is certainly good news.

I want to ask the Premier: Even though we are very early in the stage, will it be government's intention that residents of Labrador will be given priority for employment through the adjacency principle - one that works, unlike the Voisey's Bay promise that totally failed workers from Labrador during its construction - and, will it be part of that adjacency employment principle, if there is one, that apprentices will be hired for work on that project?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his question, first of all, and for indicating, generally, upfront that this is good news for the Province, because yesterday was an historic day for Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: As the member knows, we have been in Labrador in his own district with respect to consultations, and there are a number of issues that have been raised.

One of the issues that was raised in the consultations - the one that he just raised in terms of - is an effective employment strategy that would provide benefits, particularly employment benefits for the people of Labrador, one that works, compared to the Voisey's Bay agreement, in many people's perspective, that really has not worked.

Mr. Speaker, our commitment is this, that because we are and intend to be the lead with respect to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, it means this, that the lead means first consideration for benefits, employment and otherwise, for Labradorians and Newfoundlanders will occur. Benefits with respect to contracts associated with the Lower Churchill will be decided by Newfoundland and Labrador, not by SNC Lavalin out of Quebec. How the benefits proceed with respect to environmental issues, environmental assessments, what long-term arrangements -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: I know the members opposite don't want to hear it, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Labrador West.

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

I want to ask the minister, that given the large workforce that will be required to construct this project, and, at the same time, other potential mining developments that will take place in Labrador, that we have to plan today. I want to ask the minister, that given the shortage of tradespeople in our Province and in our country and the fact that we have campuses of the College of the North Atlantic in Labrador West and Goose Bay, will government look seriously at expanding and offering trade courses in the campus at Labrador West now and expanding the courses that are offered there and the campus in Happy Valley-Goose Bay?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, we made that commitment several months ago when the Budget was first announced. We have the head of the Federation of Labour - the head of the Federation of Labour, for example, is on the Skills Task Force. The reason, the sole and fundamental reason, when we were going through the White Paper on Post-Secondary Education, when hon. members opposite said that this is an exercise that was going to see rural campuses closed, is the sole reason why we are investing in rural campuses in Newfoundland and Labrador, to do this. To do exactly what the member's question is about, to prepare Labradorians and Newfoundlanders, and people in the Province generally, to manage the work that we feel is in front of us; not just associated with the potential of the Lower Churchill, not just associated with the potential of mining in Labrador and on the Island, but to be associated with the other work opportunities in the oil and gas industry, in the agrifoods industry, in the forestry industry, that we need to position ourselves for. We are doing it and will continue to do it, I say to the Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot believe what I have heard from the Minister of Finance here today, because when he was on this side of the House he always accused the government of hiding behind the boards in this Province and blaming things on the boards, Mr. Speaker.

He also was out there supporting the paramedics, believing they needed increased services. Well, in 2005 there were 260 calls for ambulatory care to these paramedics when they could not provide the service, I say to the minister. Now, you and your colleagues in the St. John's region and on the Avalon Peninsula are in a position to deal with this issue, why won't you deal with it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member can get up and grandstand all she likes. I recall several years ago meeting with them. Since then, there has been an increase in assigned units here at the hospital, I might add.

The Minister of Health, as I understood, met with them and there is a process in place to look at this and they are going to look back at the need. The minister has not ignored their request. The minister has indicated that they are prepared to look at the circumstances if there is a justification in the process. I have indicated that we do not micro manage how many nurses go on the floor, how many health professionals, how many laboratory technologists go there, how many paramedics. That is a role of health authorities - and I will say it again, it is a role of health authorities to determine the level of acceptable standards to provide; we provide funding to provide acceptable standards.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I cannot hear with the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi shouting out down there. I cannot hear what is going on, but I will repeat it again.

It is a role of government to fund to acceptable level of services. We have been doing that, Mr. Speaker. We have been providing yeoman service in health care. Far more than the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair when she sat as Minister of Health on this side (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

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

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

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act No. 2, Bill 24, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

On behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Education, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Establish The Council On Higher Education, Bill 21.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code, Bill 25.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again today to present a petition on behalf of the residents on the North Shore of the Bay of Islands - they are from the Town of Hughes Brook - concerning the dump site. I have presented petitions now for the last eight or ten days, trying to bring to the attention of the government, especially the two ministers, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Environment and Conservation, that there are some real concerns out there with regard to the extension of the Wild Cove dump site.

The mayors, through me, have written both ministers requesting a meeting. To date, I am not sure if a date has been set. I haven't received even a response from the letters to the ministers concerning this matter. I know the Minister of Municipal Affairs had a few concerns about it and he expressed them in the House, but in the press release that the Mayor of the City of Corner Brook sent out, he makes it quite clear that his intention and the intention of the City of Corner Brook is to expand the life of the dump site in Wild Cove.

I know, when I spoke to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, he said there was no such request made. He wasn't aware of such a request coming forward, and there was no application made to Municipal Affairs to extend the life of the dump site.

I can assure you that -

MR. J. BYRNE: When did I say that?

MR. JOYCE: You didn't say that?

MR. J. BYRNE: When did I say that?

MR. JOYCE: Has there been a request made -

MR. J. BYRNE: When did I say there (inaudible)?

MR. JOYCE: At a meeting that we had out here; that there is no request made from the City of Corner Brook. This is the kind of information that we are all looking for. Absolutely no one is aware of a request made to the Department of Municipal Affairs and the Department of Environment and Conservation -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: - to extend the life of the dump site. If you are wondering why there is so much confusion, just imagine eight or nine towns who are unaware of what the City of Corner Brook is planning on doing.

This is why it is needed to sit down, to have a meeting. This is why it is needed to sit down, and if there are some concerns and if there are some issues that need to be discussed, they, the residents on the North Shore - part of this petition is over 1,000 and going up to 1,500 people who want the dump site removed from the Wild Cove area. It is not only just the dump; it is the traffic problem, also, going up Wild Cove Hill.

My request is that we all should sit down with all the councils involved, especially the ones on the North Shore, the one from Massey Drive who attended the meeting also, the one from Mount Moriah, and I am sure there are others that expressed their concern. The Great Humber Joint Council has expressed a concern that there is nothing moving on this. This is why we all need to sit down in the same room, to sit down and find out what needs to be done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

Petitions?

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know how many days I have to stand and give this petition, but it seems like it is falling on deaf ears. I am giving this petition again, petitioning this government, on behalf of the people of the Buchans area.

I watched the Minister of Transportation and Works today give his hysterical answers. He stood on his feet and he was almost hysterical, trying to convince the world that he and his government were doing their best, the best yet, for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, he did not convince me, not in the least, and he did not convince the people in Buchans, Millertown, Buchans Junction and Badger.

He had the nerve, a couple of weeks ago, to put out a news release on road improvements for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans. I saw it, I read it a couple of times, and I laughed to myself. I laughed to myself, that this government were doing repairs on the Trans-Canada Highway and this was a commitment to the rural District of Grand Falls-Buchans, because he was doing repairs on the Trans-Canada Highway.

You know, he already admitted he has never been up over the Buchans Highway. He already admitted that he has never been up over the Buchans Highway. He has never been up over the 100 kilometres where there is nothing on the road only alder bushes on both sides. I can never get enough money from the Minister of Transportation and Works, nor the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, to do a proper brush cutting job on the highway. You have a safety issue of the bus coming from Millertown and Buchans Junction -

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Yes, it grew up in the last three years. That is all you know about alders. If you do not look after alders every year they grow up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't talk so foolish.

MS THISTLE: Don't talk so foolish, now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: This is the attention that I am getting from the Minister of the Crown, the Minister of Transportation and Works. That is all he cares about rural Newfoundland and Labrador: Don't be so foolish.

Let me give you a lesson in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Here you are from a place called Gunners Cove. You are from rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and since you got on your Cabinet suit you do not have a clue about rural communities around the Province. You have forgotten where you came from. You have forgotten where your roots are. That is how big you have become in your Cabinet suit since you got the job.

Well, let me tell you, Mr. Minister, there are people around this Province who need attention and they need help. Your government decided, in their wisdom, not to help the people on the Buchans Highway. Now, that is a highway that takes children -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS THISTLE: By leave?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible) thirty seconds to clue in.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted to make some concluding statements.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Do you know what that Minister of Transportation and Works just said? Give her thirty seconds to clue in. Well, let me tell you, you need more than thirty seconds to clue into reality because you need a great dose of reality. You were taken out of the fisheries portfolio because you did not know what you were doing, and now you should be taken out of that one!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Leave has been withdrawn.

Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again today to present a petition from the undersigned residents of Burnt Point to Western Bay, Northern Bay and Gull Island.

WHEREAS conditions of Route 70 passing through Victoria and Salmon Cove is badly in need of repair; and

WHEREAS the traffic travelling over this road includes school buses, commercial trucks and patients going to hospitals either by ambulance or by private means; and

WHEREAS this route is part of the Conception Bay North Highway and it has deteriorated over the past number of years;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, call upon all Members of the House of Assembly to see that this section of road is brought up to proper standards.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is the sixth day for me to bring a petition similar to this one to the House and, as I speak, there are other people in the area who are filling out petitions. The state of this road is deplorable. I know it is a dead issue to stand here in the House to ask for road repairs. I know that I am not being listened to. The Minister of Transportation has treated this very lightly over the past number of days. The Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde, in her speech a little while ago, said that the only one in her district complaining about the roads is her mechanic. Well, Mr. Speaker, all these people came from her district, and they were pretty quick to point that out to me.

Mr. Speaker, it is very important - it is very important - that this road be repaired. It is the lifeline of that particular shore. Every piece of traffic, every worker, every school bus, every ambulance that travels in that area travels over that highway.

Mr. Speaker, Old Perlican and Bay de Verde have two of the largest crab plants in the Province. A large number of workers commute back and forth daily. Couple that with the large number of tractor trailers.

Last Saturday, I think there were well over twenty-five trucks that went over that particular area, according to one resident who was counting them. You know, all of this adds to a case and makes a case that this road should be repaired. In that particular area, in that particular part of the shore, there is a seniors' complex. There is a clinic, a twenty-four hour clinic there.

MS JOHNSON: When did you hear that?

MR. SWEENEY: Last weekend, actually, I say to the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde, probably since you were there, very likely, from what I have been told.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Leave has been requested to make some concluding comments.

MR. E. BYRNE: Just a few seconds to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. SWEENEY: Again, Mr. Speaker, I ask this hon. House and the Minister of Transportation and Works to pay particular attention to the request of these people and see if there is something that can be done to help them through this upcoming year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I recall one time in the House there was a petition presented by a member talking about - he presented a petition on behalf of the residents of the district he lived in, and that was a former Member for Topsail. We discovered upon looking at the petition that there were no residents names from Topsail and that the petition was actually signed by three members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the Buchans Highway is an important issue. I acknowledge that, members acknowledge it. But, so is our credibility, Mr. Speaker, an important issue. The member stood today and here is what she read:

To The Honourable House of Assembly of The Province of Newfoundland And Labrador In Parliament Assembled. The Petition of the undersigned residents - with respect to the Buchans Highway. Now, the names on the petition are not residents of Exploits, they are three Opposition members' staff, Mr. Speaker. That is what we have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, the question is this. If the member or any member wishes to present petitions we have absolutely every right and residents of districts have a right to present petitions but what we see here today is a little grandstanding, I suspect, Mr. Speaker, from the Member for Exploits. No one is trying to shut down a legitimate issue. The member has an issue with respect to the Buchans Highway, residents have expressed that, but the member does not have a right to get Opposition staff to sign petitions and then present them to the House as if they were residents presenting petitions, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask you to rule upon that matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to speak to that point of order. I am the elected representative for the people of Buchans and Grand Falls-Buchans. I had that petition passed by the Table and it is quite in order and I am speaking on behalf of the people in my district. They have brought that concern to me. They have brought that concern to me and I will represent them as long as I am elected to this House of Assembly.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, no one is questioning the member's right to speak about an issue in her district and no one is questioning - I am certainly not - a member's right to speak about an issue in Buchans. That is not the issue. What I am questioning is the member in doing so presents a petition that signs the petition of the undersigned residents of the district and the petition is signed by members in the Opposition staff. They are not signed by residents. That is the point, Mr. Speaker.

I am not trying to discourage the member or trying to shut down the member from speaking with the issue. If the member has every person in her district sign a petition and wants to come and read it one page at a time, that is her right. But, Mr. Speaker, I believe there is something fundamentally wrong with any member, whether it be me or any other member, standing up presenting a petition which says: The petition of the undersigned residents of the district - and the people who signed it are members of their own staff.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a comment here. I have no difficulty with what the Government House Leader is saying in terms of process. Of course, we are all here and we all ought to live by the rules of process that are going to apply to the House in the case of petitions, as the case with anything else.

It is my understanding that we have a process in place whereby any petitions that are entered by any members of the Opposition, once drafted they are vetted by the Table Officers of this House to determine if they are appropriate and, in fact, in order with the rules. Now, if there has been any breach of that process by the Opposition members in not following the process, we would certainly make sure that it would not happen again, but with regard to the reference - and I guess myself, I am equally as guilty if that is the case, because I have been putting in petitions here - and this is my ninth petition I intended to put in today from the district of - I represent Burgeo & LaPoile, and it starts off by saying: The petition of the unsigned residents. Now, I did not identify what particular district they are from; I did not identify what particular community they are from. It just says residents.

Now, in this particular case, I do have residents from Port aux Basques, Rose Blanche, Harbour Breton, Harbour Le Cou, and there are three signatures from persons here in the Building as well. If that is incorrect, fine. In future, we will correct the process. I have filed eight of these in the last eight days and no one has been saying I have been doing anything wrong. So, unless I have been misguided by somebody here -

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would like to give the opportunity to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and then we will return to the Government House Leader.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can recall one precedent in this House a few years ago when the former Member for Topsail had a petition in this House and it was the petition of the Catholic Women's League of Topsail, as I recall, which was signed by three, apparently, male members of the House of Assembly who were obviously not members of the Catholic Women's League of Topsail, whatever their religion.

That particular petition was a case where the actual wording of the prayer of the petition was changed to make it more acceptable to the people who were presenting it. I do not think the Chair, of that occasion, ruled on it. I think the House ended up in an uproar over the debate, but I think it is something that there should be some ruling on because a petition that is presented to the House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: We all have difficulties with petitions from time to time, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes we have to get them faxed in if the members are from remoter districts that they have to be faxed in, and these are deemed to be acceptable, but when the contents of a petition are -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The Chair is most anxious to hear the presentation by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and I ask members for their co-operation.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think at that particular occasion the Chair did not rule on the petition because the Chair was too busy ruling on my allegations of fraud by the member presenting the petition - which I had to, eventually, withdraw. But, I think it would be useful to have a ruling on this, Mr. Speaker, because when the prayer of a petition is contradicted by the signatories, then I think that is a matter for a ruling of the Chair and not something for the Clerk to pass as a matter of form in looking at the petition.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I look at every petition, as a matter of course, that comes across the desk, members on my own side. I look at petitions from the Table, and the Opposition House Leader said that this was passed by the Table Officers. I am sure it was in terms of was the prayer in order, but Table Officers are not in a position to say: Are those residents or not? Nor should they question if those are residents or not. That is not the role of the Table Officers. The role of the Table Officers is to say that the petition is in the correct parliamentary form to be presented in the House.

Mr. Speaker, if we accept the premise on which the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans just sang out to me. She said: You know, I am the member and I am a resident. Well, then that is fine. As a member of the House and as a resident of the district, she has many opportunities in this House in debate, which she has used on many occasions, to discuss that particular issue. But petitions are a different matter. Petitions are -

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, you might not think this is important but it is.

The fact of the matter is, when you put on the floor of the House a petition from residents of your district and indicate that it is residents of your district when you know full well that the three people who have signed it are not residents from your district, Mr. Speaker, I think there is a fundamental problem with that. I think there is a fundamental problem with that and I ask you to rule on this matter.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank all hon. members for their presentations, and in my time here, the last thirteen years and a bit, I have heard many petitions. The fact that members have some of their staff people sign a petition is not new to this Speaker. However, the issue we have here is a little different.

I also want to make note that when the petitions are presented to the Clerk or to the Assistant Clerk, they are looking at whether the petition is in the correct format. They do not have any knowledge of where the people who signed the petition would live, or be able to verify that particular matter.

I would ask members if they could look at, in our Standing Orders, Sections 90 to 97. In Section 91. (1) it says, "A petition may be either printed or written and if more than 3 petitioners sign it, at least 3 signatures must appear on the page containing the prayer of the petition."

In this particular matter the issue is, I understand that there were three people who signed these petitions on the front page of the petition that was presented. If members wish, I would like to be able to consult with the House leadership, perhaps, before we make further commentary on this matter, and we will come back maybe another day so that we can make sure that we are consistent in the application of the rules.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Are we at Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

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

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

I want to move to Motions first. I want to move Motion 2, to move first reading of An Act To Amend The Forestry Act. (Bill 15)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Motion 2.

It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act. (Bill 15)

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Forestry Act," carried. (Bill 15)

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 Forestry Act. (Bill 15)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 15 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 15 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Motion 3, Mr. Speaker, first reading of a bill, An Act Respecting The Enforcement Of Support Orders. (Bill 27)

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 Respecting The Enforcement Of Support Orders. (Bill 27)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce Bill 27?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting The Enforcement Of Support Orders," carried. (Bill 27)

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 Bill 27 be now read first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Enforcement Of Support Orders. (Bill 27)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 27 has now been read a first time.

When shall this bill be read a second time?

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

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 27 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, first reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act. (Bill 22)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act. (Bill 22)

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act," carried. (Bill 22)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 22 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 22 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 Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act. (Bill 22)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 22 has now been read a first time.

When shall this bill be read a second time?

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

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

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

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

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

I move first reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act. (Bill 28)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act. (Bill 28)

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act," carried. (Bill 28)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 28 be now read a first time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 28 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 28, 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 6, to move pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m today, Tuesday, May 9.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House not adjourn today, Tuesday, May 9, at 5:30 p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Finally, on the Motions side, Motion 7, to move pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Tuesday, May 9.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Tuesday, May 9, 2006.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Order 8, second reading of a bill, An Act Respecting The Practice of Physiotherapy. (Bill 19)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 19, An Act Respecting the Practice of Physiotherapy, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice of Physiotherapy." ( Bill 19)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, members would recall, and possibly the public would recall, that in the last session, or the last time the House of Assembly was open, we passed about eleven acts last fall with respect to the Department of Health and Community Services: the Denturists Act and a few other acts. This is one that was inadvertently not incorporated in, at that time, so I do want to take the opportunity from government's point of view. This is an act that deals with important matters, but matters related to self-regulated bodies.

The proposed bill, Mr. Speaker, is intended really to update disciplinary procedures and board appointment processes. Changes to this statute are based on, as I indicated, the current version, I believe, Mr. Speaker, of a disciplinary model that has been incorporated into the Massage Therapy Act, the Optometry Act, the Veterinary Medical Act, the Pharmacy Act, the Medical Act itself, Denturists Act, Dispensing Opticians Act, Psychology Act, Dietitians Act, Hearing Aid Practitioners Act, Licensed Practical Nurses Act, and Occupational Health and Therapists Act.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation with respect to the governance and the governance issues associated with the physiotherapists. It was a piece that should have been included in the session the fall but was not, so I am pleased to move second reading of this bill to bring this issue in line with all the other disciplines that we have already dealt with in this House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further debate.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to certainly speak to Bill 19. As the minister indicated when he introduce the bill today, there has been similar legislation already passed in the House as it governs other professional organizations in the medical field.

Just for those people who don't understand, I guess, what it is we are talking about, the government has moved to establishing a new process that deals with these particular professional organizations, and that new process is called colleges of professionals.

As it relates to physiotherapy, Mr. Speaker, in our Province, there will now be a college of physiotherapy established. This particular group will govern all the rules and regulations as it relates to the practice of physiotherapy in our Province today, and they will also be governed, the college itself, by a council. That particular council, Mr. Speaker, will be established by a number of people, nine members in particular. Seven of those members who will be making up this council of physiotherapy will actually be those who work as registered physiotherapists in our Province today. There will also be two other members who will make up this council and those two other members will be appointed and serve at the pleasure of the government. They will not be physiotherapists but they will be people who, I guess, the government deems adequate to be able to sit as part of this council and to make those particular decisions.

Mr. Speaker, one may wonder what this council will do once they are established, and I guess there are a number of things they will do. The first and probably the most important thing they will do is they will have a tremendous amount of input into regulations and legislation that will govern physiotherapy as we know it as a profession, and the physiotherapists themselves as professionals, within our Province. They will look at what the conditions are for the registration of physiotherapy, and they will also look at what conditions are required from physiotherapists upon registration.

For example, Mr. Speaker, like any profession, physiotherapists in the Province, I am sure, will be required to maintain their skills to a certain level that is acceptable. They may be required on more than one occasion to do different educational or training programs that are certainly beneficial to their profession and the carrying out of their work and their standard. Mr. Speaker, the Council for Physiotherapists in the Province would be the people who would establish what educational programs would be required for physiotherapists, what upgrading or training skills would be required on an annual basis for them to be able to maintain their licences and be able to provide the professional standards that we require.

Also, Mr. Speaker, this council will look at the forms of physiotherapy that will be provided in our Province and they will provide input to the government on what forms of physiotherapy should be offered. As you know, right now, in our Province, there is a full range of physiotherapy services being provided through various clinics and individuals all over the Province. So, it would be this council that would review those types of services to look at whether there are new services that will be added or permissible and so on. That will be the kind of decisions they will make.

They will also make other decisions, Mr. Speaker, and that is as it pertains to complaints. If there are complaints or allegations made towards a physiotherapist in the Province, that one has been seeking for professional or medical treatment, then it would be this particular council that would deal with those complaints and allegations. They would look at them seriously and they would make a ruling on them. They would, at least, consider all the information and they would be the people who would be responding at the initial stages, Mr. Speaker. There may be a need for other things, like investigations and so on. No doubt, those things as well would be determined by this particular council.

I guess some people may raise the issue or the concern as to whether this is fair and an open process, because as you know, and I know, that if you are seeking the services of a physiotherapist in the Province and you do not get the results you want or you feel that the services you have required have not been necessary or not been adequate to meet what your medical condition is and you are taking that complaint or allegation to this council, you have to realize that this council is made up of seven individuals who are actually physiotherapists themselves. While they have the benefit of the expert advice, they are also bringing a complaint to a board of colleagues against another colleague.

So, there have been concerns and I think those concerns were raised as well when other colleges of professionals were established in the Province. So, I am sure that will be an issue that will be dealt with. In the legislation it says that there can be a tribunal appointed that would hold hearings and further investigate these issues if the need arises. I guess that will allow the process to have a little bit more of an independent solution to it, as opposed to just dealing with the council themselves. The legislation does allow for a tribunal to be appointed for an investigation to be conducted for further information to be analyzed in the case of anyone who is coming forward.

MR. E. BYRNE: Independent and arms-length (inaudible).

MS JONES: Yes, independent and arms-length of the council, the Government House Leader was just indicating. The only reason I say that is because in establishing all of these colleges of professionals, whether it is for pharmacists or physicians or occupational therapists or massage therapists or dieticians or, in this case, physiotherapists, all of the initial councils have been made up of professionals from within those respective fields. So, therefore, in order to allow for the more independent process to occur, it gives leave to have proper tribunals appointed and investigations completed.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to go on for a long time other than to say that this particular legislation is not unlike other bills that we have already passed in the House of Assembly. There have been issues raised and discussed from Opposition and government, and I have no problem with this college being established for physiotherapists. I think they are a very professional group of people in our society who provide invaluable medical services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Unfortunately, I have had to access the service myself on one or two occasions. Notwithstanding last spring when I had a sprained ankle and had to come to the House of Assembly in a cast, but let me just say, my physiotherapist played a tremendous role in my recovery and helped me immensely in being able to deal with that sprain.

So, I know firsthand, having had the opportunity to access their services, that they are very professional people and are definitely there to help, not just in smaller instances like I have had but, certainly, in some very major instances. I am sure that people who have become victims of occupational hazards have found out more so than anyone. I would think that a large portion of the people in our Province today who seek the services of physiotherapists are those who have been injured in the workforce, on the job, and certainly need those kinds of professional services to be able to help them rebuild themselves back to gainful employment again.

I have no problem in supporting a college for physiotherapists and to say that this is, indeed, a professional organization who have established themselves in our Province, who meet all the professional standards, Mr. Speaker, and are certainly a very credible organization that should be treated in the same manner as all other professional groups within our medical field in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Further debate?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to say a few words at second reading on Bill 19, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Physiotherapy in the Province.

As with other health professions, Mr. Speaker, there is an ethical and disciplinary procedure that is provided for in most legislation, some of them like the physiotherapists. There has been legislation respecting physiotherapists since at least 1970, perhaps long before, with a College of Physiotherapists and some rules.

The current act replaces the existing legislation, Mr. Speaker, and does a great deal to update the act and to provide for a greater definition of the kind of things that might end up being before a disciplinary panel for violation of the ethical practices and codes of conduct of people in a position of authority, to some extent, as a health professional. There can be circumstances where a persons behaviour is called into question as a result of their conduct with patients or in terms of their dealings with patients with respect to financial obligations, in the case of professionals like physiotherapists who may charge for their services, and also certain other actions that may be considered to be unprofessional conduct for physiotherapists.

I guess physiotherapists, like a lot of professions in the health area - the nursing profession, physiotherapy, medical doctors, chiropractors - there is a certain degree of intimacy with respect to the provision of these types of health services. At certain times, of course, individuals can run afoul of the type of professional behaviour expected with respect to dealing with patients, or particularly dealing with minors or young people. There is a high standard of behaviour expected of people in these professional positions and there needs to be a procedure in place to protect members of the public and to discipline professionals who act in a manner that is not appropriate to the profession.

You have to kind of watch some of these rules, though, Mr. Speaker. I notice in the act there is a notion - in fact, in the previous act there were probably only two or three things that were considered unprofessional. One was to act in a manner unbecoming to a physiotherapist. Now, I am not sure what exactly that means, Mr. Speaker. I remember, when I was at Memorial University some many years ago, the University Discipline Code had a provision which said that you could not act in a manner that was unbecoming a student of Memorial University. We had a great bit of fun with that one, Mr. Speaker, because, if the University decided to discipline somebody, there was really no definition of what was unbecoming a student of Memorial University.

I remember the days of Lord Taylor, and a lot of student demonstrations and activities. The fact that you were hauled before the discipline committee for actions unbecoming to a student at Memorial University covered a pretty wide swath, Mr. Speaker, so we have to be very careful as to what we would put in the rules.

I do notice, Mr. Speaker, that in the Physiotherapy Act now before us there is provision for the council of the College of Physiotherapists to make by-laws that establish a code of ethics which would include a definition of professional misconduct, and conduct unbecoming a physiotherapist, for the purposes of sections 15 to 31, and standards governing the practice of physiotherapy, including standards of professional competence and capacity and fitness to practice, and also rules respecting methods or advertising.

Mr. Speaker, I think the expectation these days is that, if you are going to have something as broad as conduct unbecoming a physiotherapist or professional misconduct, you have to be a little bit more specific than that. Of course, the code of ethics that comes under the by-law, section 8 of this bill, would provide for rules and definitions, so you just cannot accuse somebody of conduct unbecoming a professional without something more than that.

Obviously, there are standards of practice that are applied, and standards of professional competence, so that if somebody is, for reasons of ill health or whatever other reason, unable to conduct themselves as properly as a physiotherapist - and this applies, obviously, to other professions - then it is a procedure to ensure that person is not going to be carrying out the practice of the profession and the licence can be challenged or removed for that purpose; and, because it is a profession, professions are a little bit concerned about how members advertise themselves to the public.

I know with the legal profession there was an absolute prohibition of advertising at one time because lawyers were supposed to be up above these sort of commercial, crass type of things. Now we can look at TV and you see the Americans in particular advertising their services, and you see it, of course, in St. John's and in Newfoundland and Labrador in the telephone books. People are putting themselves forth as being experienced, and the people to go to if you have problems, and we even hear it on the radio.

There are still standards of good taste and professional advertising being considered, both in the legal profession and, of course, here in the physiotherapy profession, so we do have this legislation here, Mr. Speaker, for physiotherapists. We have already passed it for occupational therapists, for optometrists, for chiropractors, for nurses in the Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we do have a distinction made in a lot of fields, such as the accountancy field, the legal field, and again with the physiotherapists. They have a union. The Allied Health Professionals includes physiotherapists. The Nurses' Union looks after the nurses' interests. The Canadian Bar Association looks after the professional interests of an advocacy on behalf of lawyers. Then there are these disciplinary bodies, or colleges in some cases - here we are talking about the College of Physiotherapy, the Law Society, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the College of Physicians and Surgeons as opposed to the Medical Association. So, we have two types of bodies, an advocacy body for the professional interests of professionals and we also then have the governing bodies which the self-governing professions are given access to, whether it be engineers or physiotherapists or doctors.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: As in all of the modern and more sophisticated acts in the self-governing professions, not only are there members of the profession who sit on the board on disciplinary panels but you also have members of the public.

In the case of physiotherapists, the section that provides for that states that there shall be seven members of the profession on the council governing the college, the seven members elected from and by registered physiotherapists in accordance with the by-laws, and two members appointed under another section of the act who are not registered as physiotherapists, and those two non-physiotherapists who are members of the College of Physiotherapy council are appointed by the minister - in this case, I believe - the Minister of Health and Community Services.

So, we have a situation where, although they are self-governing professions, there is an oversight by the general public to ensure that the broader considerations of the public interests are also in play in determining how complaints are handled and the procedures that are there.

As I say, this modernizes the existing act with respect to physiotherapy and repeals that act, replaces it with this one which has all of the trappings of the current sense of what the law should provide to ensure that a proper procedure is in place, that physiotherapists have protection in terms of an investigation and a procedure that is there that can be followed, an appeal procedure as well as an investigation procedure, and a procedure to ensure that complaints that are deemed not to be of any merit do not even get to the tribunal stage.

This is a part of the new modern acts that we have passed in the previous session with respect to other professions, and I am certainly in support of Bill 19 to do this for physiotherapists as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further debate at second reading?

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

I recognize the hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I just want to thank the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi for participating in the debate and supporting the legislation.

It is as they said it to be, and as I introduced it to be, that this is a piece of legislation that puts it in line, I guess, with this profession and how it is regulated with all other professions in terms of how we passed legislation back in the fall past dealing with that.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 19, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Physiotherapy, 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 Physiotherapy. (Bill 19)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 19 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 Respecting The Practice Of Physiotherapy," 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 12, second reading of a bill, An Act Respecting The Convention On The Settlement Of Investment Disputes Between States And Nationals Of Other States. (Bill 12)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 12, An Act Respecting The Convention On The Settlement Of Investment Disputes Between States And Nationals Of Other States, be read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Convention On The Settlement Of Investment Disputes Between States And Nationals Of Other States." (Bill 12)

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

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to second reading on Bill 12, which is entitled, An Act Respecting The Convention On The Settlement Of Investment Disputes Between States And Nationals Of Other States.

The purpose of the bill is to institute in Canada the adoption of an international Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States. As the explanatory note does indicate: The international convention establishes a fair and impartial arbitration process to quickly resolve investment disputes between contracting states and foreign nationals who invest in those particular states.

In 1966, the World Bank, which is based in Washington, DC and is a vital source of financial and technical assistance to reduce poverty and to improve living standards in many developing countries, was instrumental in creating the international Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States.

The convention provides a well-respected method to resolve disputes between member countries who have ratified the convention and foreign investors who invest in those counties. The convention has now been ratified by 143 counties worldwide, and its use of fair, impartial, transparent and timely conciliation and arbitration methods to resolve disputes has enhanced the appeal of investing in those countries which have ratified the convention. The convention has proven to be one of the great success stories in international law and it creates certainty for international investment.

Mr. Speaker, despite the support for the convention throughout the world, its ratification by all economically developed and developing countries and the advantages that the convention would have in promoting and attracting international investment, the country of Canada has not yet become a signatory to the convention. To join the convention, Canada requires the support of the provinces and the Territories to implement the convention in these jurisdictions. Newfoundland and Labrador now stands ready to do its part.

Mr. Speaker, Canadian business strongly supports the convention, both in terms of attracting business and investment to Canada, and in providing a fair and impartial means to resolve disputes when Canadian business persons invest abroad. The convention has received unqualified support of business, legal and industry groups throughout the country, and provincial and territorial government and have been urged to make ratification of the convention a priority.

Mr. Speaker, the convention is clearly beneficial for Canada. There is no outlay of public funds required to support the implementation of the convention. An organization called the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, a very well respected national legal policy organization, has prepared this draft legislation that insists jurisdictions, such as Newfoundland and Labrador, in implementation of convention.

To support the efforts of all of the groups and the sectors of Canadian society who would benefit from Canada becoming the signatory to the convention, I am pleased today to introduce the Settlement of International Disputes Act for consideration by this House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few brief words with respect to Bill 12. I guess in our global economy of today, of course, we need lots of rules and regulations. It is not easy when you try to take, not only ten provinces we have ourselves and come up with an agreement that is workable as far as interprovincial trade regulations, but it gets even more complicated when you try to do it in a global atmosphere where you have hundreds of countries involved and you have disputes, awards and arbitrations taking place, various tribunals in each respective country and try to find a format whereby you know once you have reached a resolution of the problem: How do you enforce your judgement? What is the point if you take somebody to court and at the end of the day there is nobody to say that your judgement is enforceable anywhere?

What is happening here is a process whereby if you have these arbitrations and decisions that are being made in a country, you just do not reach the end of the line and have nowhere to go once you have your decision. What you have in this ability to do here, in this particular field of monetary awards and so on, it is allowing to have a uniform process whereby everybody will work by the same rules and there will be an enforceability element. It is the same under our family law legislation, for example, where we have reciprocity agreements and reciprocal enforcement of agreements when it comes to support orders in our own country on a smaller scale. You can pretty well use it anywhere across the country nowadays when it comes to collection purposes and so on and enforcement.

The only question I would have, and just to give the minister a heads up when we get to - not that I want to get into this complicated detailed piece of legislation here that involves numerous countries, but I am just a bit curious as to clause 5 of Bill 12 when it says, "This Act binds the Crown, other than a Crown corporation of the province." I am just a bit curious about that statement. I have seen a lot of legislation over the years, and laws and so on, but it just seems a bit unique that we are having a law here that would make this law binding on the Crown, but in some way or other it says, "...other than a Crown corporation of the province." I am just wondering, when we get to that point in Committee stage, maybe if the minister can inform us a bit as to the rationale of that. It seems unusual that you would agree that the Crown itself could be bound but you don't agree - in fact you are saying here it will not apply to a Crown agency. That seems to be very different. I am just wondering if maybe we could have a comment later on in that regard.

Other than that, we certainly are in support of this Bill 12. We are just looking for the clarification and explanation there. We will be voting in support of it.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Looking at the legislation now before us, it seems to be a pretty specific and particular type of legislation that allows for international arbitration of disputes between a country, which they call contracting states, I believe - that is the States and Nationals of other States who are members of this convention who can consent to put matters to arbitration. This particular type of dispute we are talking about is a dispute between a Country and a National of another Country. I suppose, what it refers to is if the Government of Newfoundland or the Government of Canada enters into an agreement with a company or an individual in another country, this is a process for a resolution of disputes that occur there if the parties give their consent, and once giving their consent the consent cannot be taken away.

It certainly seems to me to be a step in international law that makes sense, to advance some kind of international jurisdiction on an arbitration basis for disputes of a commercial nature. I don't have any difficulty in supporting this. I wonder if the minister can tell us what other jurisdictions within Canada have yet passed this legislation. I gather from his comments that there are a number of countries around the world who have signed on to this convention. Presumably it now has the force of international law.

What I do note in the trend, Mr. Speaker, obviously we see - I am assuming the United States has signed on to this agreement, being of a commercial nature. They seem to be very willing to do that. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we do not see the same kind of international co-operation from them on matters such as the International Criminal Court which Canada has played a very significant role in, particularly with Madam Justice Louise Arbour as a member of that court. They do not seem to be willing to submit those kinds of disputes to international tribunals, although they are quite happy to try and enforce commercial obligations against other countries, and nationals of other countries, through matters such as this.

I believe, and the minister can correct me if I am wrong, that this is a provision or this is a convention that will allow investment dispute between, say, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and some company in the United Kingdom who has an agreement with respect to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and this would provide a means of dispute for that agreement if there had not been any governing law provided for, and this provides a mechanism whereby these disputes can go to arbitration by nationals of a contracting state who wish to participate in this type of arbitration, conciliation proceedings.

What is interesting about it, the jurisdiction comes from the consent of the individuals, but once that consent has been given it cannot be withdrawn. So, once you put yourself before such a tribunal, all of the proceedings of this convention apply and you can have recourse to this type of arbitration and enforcement.

I would ask if the minister can explain section 12. I am sure he has been fully briefed on every section of the act and perhaps can explain to us what the provision of section 12 refers to, or clause 12 of the bill on page 5, which allows the Lieutenant-Governor or the Cabinet of Newfoundland and Labrador to make regulations which, first of all, allow the Crown to enter into an agreement recording the consent to arbitration.

Well, that speaks for itself but I find the second part there interesting. The Lieutenant-Governor may make regulations exempting a person or class of persons from the application of an enactment or a provision of it - it being, I presume, the convention - on those conditions that may be specified in the regulations in order to permit them to act in a professional capacity in an arbitration or conciliation proceeding.

I am not really sure what that refers to. I guess it must be some provision there in the agreement and the convention that restricts those who can appear before these conciliation boards and presumably - and maybe the minister can enlighten us - the Cabinet can exempt certain persons from that if it is necessary or if they wish to have their own lawyers or their own counsel to go and appear before such a tribunal or to appoint someone of their choosing to make application to a tribunal or to serve their interests. It just seems to me to be an unusual provision and I wonder; maybe the minister has more information on that than I do.

Certainly, in principle I do not have any objection to this type of international forum which provides for a resolution of investment disputes with the consent of the contracting states and the nationals of other states. I do not how often it will be used by this Province but if this is necessary for the national convention to be adopted then I have no difficulty supporting the legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Further debate at second reading?

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

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

I appreciate the comments of hon. members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, the Uniform Law Conference of Canada has prepared this particular act to assist the implementation in Canada of the ICSID Convention and to enable our domestic courts in their respective jurisdictions to recognize and to enforce awards rendered under the Convention. The federal Minister of Justice at the time, Mr. Irwin Cotler, urges provincial and territorial counterparts to adopt a ratification legislation in each jurisdiction by May of this year so that there will uniform implementation of the ICSID Convention throughout the country.

As to the questions raised by the hon. members opposite, I will discuss this with my officials and get more information and bring it back during Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 12, An Act Respecting The Convention On The Settlement Of Investment Disputes Between States And Nationals Of Other States 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 Convention On The Settlement Of Investment Disputes Between States And Nationals Of Other States. (Bill 12)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 12 has now been read a second time.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Later.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Convention On The Settlement Of Investment Disputes Between States And Nationals Of Other Sates," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 12)

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

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

Order 6, Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act." (Bill 7)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are basically two things this is doing in the first clause of the bill. It is allowing an amount to be put in to pay the current services determined by the government's actuary, because under the Income Tax Act we would have to comply. If you recall, we did the same thing in the House in the last session, I believe, the last session, with the MHA Pension Plan. There is an amount that would be - you have to comply with the act under the pension plan itself. That has to comply. Any excess cost, then would be paid out of the Consolidated Fund Services. That is just bringing that in line.

The second thing is, really, it probably should have gone in, in the beginning. What happened when it was introduced, and that is why it is asked to be retroactive to April 1, 2002, is, when the principal beneficiary - when a judge passes away, is deceased, normally the principal beneficiary would receive a per cent of that pension, as in most plans 60 per cent, but other plans have one also. In the case that the beneficiary is somebody who is a child under the age of eighteen, it would allow that proportion of the pension to go to that dependent child, if the child is under eighteen, or if the child is at a post-secondary, in school - I do not think it specifies post-secondary - if the child is in school, at an educational institution, and they are under twenty-five, they could get the benefit. Because someone could pass away without a spouse, they have a child, the spouse could be deceased or, for whatever reason, are no longer the spouse, and they have a dependent who is eighteen, seventeen, or twenty-two, in school, would be left with no opportunity to be the beneficiary of that up to a certain age.

That puts something in, a provision that is going to allow what is in other particular plans. It was basically an oversight, I would assume, back in 2002. I do not recall the specific bill at the time, but that is why it is retroactive to that point, actually, to pick it up from the time that this pension plan came into effect as it is with other plans.

That is basically all that is to this. I would say it is generally housekeeping. I would regard it as housekeeping because it makes it on par with other plans in that regard on the beneficiary. The dependent child can be a legitimate beneficiary of that. There is no provision for that now. Of course, we have to comply with the Income Tax Act. One of the reasons, I said here in the House earlier, is that we have been telling Revenue Canada overall, even with the MHA plan and others, that they would have to come on side with CRA under the Income Tax Act. Therefore, you can only put into a plan the actuarial amount to make that plan in compliance with the law. If any excess amount is to be paid out, it would have to be paid out of a supplementary source of income, which would be the CFS. Of course, with contributory earnings of 3.3 per cent under the judges' pension plan, there would need to be contributory earnings outside the confines of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, that addresses that.

With that, Mr. Speaker, that is all the comments I have at second reading. If anybody has a comment or a question, I can certainly answer that in committee stage or in my closing address. We might be able to move this housekeeping one through very quickly.

Thank you.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to rise and respond to Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act.

The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board is quite right in his comments concerning this particular act. Many times when legislation is passed it is considered to be right and proper and correct, but sometimes after legislation actually goes into effect there might be a specific case that might call into question the actual language that is written in the piece of legislation - and I do know if this was the case in this particular act, but it has been brought to the attention of the government that there was a couple of areas there that needed to be amended.

As we all know, when it comes to who actually - considering remuneration for the judges in our Province, there is a special tribunal that from time to time reviews the remuneration and benefits for the judges in our Province. A comparison is looked at for the remuneration paid right across our country and benefits are examined from time to time to see if ours are in-line with benefits paid in other provinces and jurisdictions. Then once the tribunal makes their findings, well this report is then presented to government and presented to the Department of Finance and Treasury Board which, in turn, goes to Cabinet for approval. So it is not like we were standing here today and examining the judges' pension and deciding and recommending what and if a certain judge should be paid, whether it be a supreme court judge, which we have no jurisdiction over, or a provincial judge. It is a tribunal that would give us its report and it is then up to Cabinet whether or not they will go along with it, but this is not really what we are discussing today.

We are discussing the fact that there is a flaw in clause 2 and 3 of the bill. What that means is that in the case of the death of a judge - a judge, like any of us, would designate a beneficiary, which would not necessarily be the spouse of the employee or the judge, it may be the children. It does not necessarily have to be the spouse. There was an error in the past legislation which brought that to the attention of government. I think it is very important that safeguards be put in place whereby if a judge actually happens to die while in active service or even at a later date, the beneficiary, in this case, would receive 60 per cent of the judge's pension. If the beneficiary is a child, well then that amount would go to the children of the judge and also be available to children of the judge until they reach the age of twenty-five and they were actually attending a post-secondary education institution.

This is what this bill is all about. It would be very difficult not to go along with it. I think it is pretty straightforward, from what I can see. I have read through the bill, and from this side of the House of Assembly, I believe that it is in order. I must say, I approve of what is being done here today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to say a few words on Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan.

As I understand it from the minister, Mr. Speaker, this is essentially a housekeeping type of legislation. The attempt in clause1 is to comply with the requirements of the Income Tax Act of Canada by ensuring that only those amounts that are permitted under the Income Tax Act of Canada are actually paid into the fund established under the Pensions Funding Act. So that is a separate fund. It is only allowed to have a certain amount of money in it, or a certain amount of percentage of salary in it. That sets up a separate act so that it brings the legislation inline with the Income Tax Act of Canada. That is the provision that is made retroactive to April 1, 2002, I believe, because of federal legislation that requires adjustments to be made as of that particular date because all provincial pension plans were expected to come into compliance as of that date.

With regard to clause 2 and 3, Mr. Speaker, this seems to be designed to fix up some anomaly that was created when the act was put in place in the first place, and this really speaks to the procedure that we use in passing legislation. I know about ten years ago the House adopted a procedure of having most legislation go through a legislative committee of the House for review and consideration before it was actually tabled in the House of Assembly. So if there were issues that came up, that members in scrutinizing legislation came up with issues, those issues could be resolved; that amendments could be made; that anomalies could be fixed; that problems could be solved before it came to the House, but we seemed to have abandoned that procedure in the last seven or eight years. I would urge some consideration be given to reviving that to give members an opportunity, through a committee process, to actually review legislation and study legislation so that errors can be picked up, so that legislation can be improved by the committees. We had a number of examples, when that procedure was in place, that saw major improvements to legislation.

We do see at the federal level in the House of Commons, particularly complex legislation goes to a committee for study and it is in the committee that the officials who drafted the legislation, whose policy is being advanced through the legislation, which legislation of policy is under consideration, it is there that witnesses are called, that people have an opportunity to debate the particular aspects of legislation before it gets to the House of Commons. We have seen - in some cases, I guess, you see legislation that does not make it because it is so controversial and never gets back to the House of Commons. In other cases you see legislation with substantial improvements made as a result of contributions made, not just by government members or ministers but by members of the Opposition in committee and various other parties who have something to bring to the table in terms of an understanding of the issue or policy change of direction.

With respect to the provisions of the beneficiaries or surviving beneficiaries of a pension, I am not so sure that the previous speaker, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, is correct, that you can actually designate a beneficiary, whoever you like. I believe that the surviving principal beneficiary is defined in the act. It may be a spouse to whom you were married or it may be a common-law spouse and one is designated, even though you may be married to somebody else. So, there is a complex definition, I believe, that recognizes the complexities of modern life and the fact that even though you may have a spouse to whom you are not divorced, you may be living common law with somebody else.

AN HON. MEMBER: You may not have a spouse.

MR. HARRIS: Or you may not have a spouse at all. The term principal beneficiary, in fact, is used as a different type of designation than a surviving spouse. We are obviously talking here about survivor benefits when a provincial court judge, in this case - or it could be a member of the House or it could be a public servant or someone subject to a pension act who dies and there are survivor benefits that apply. It may be something that has to recognize the realities of people's lives.

I think it is being brought in to fix up whatever misunderstanding or provision needed clarity, and I don't have any difficulty with it, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask the minister, though - he says he wasn't sure whether it was post-secondary education or not, but I do notice that this act and other acts have some provisions for the children of a pensioner to receive a pension while they are under the age of twenty-five while they are in full-time attendance at a recognized school or post-secondary educational institution. I wonder if the minister can say: Is there some process whereby schools or post-secondary educational institutions are, in fact, recognized? It used the words recognized school, and I wonder is there a schedule or is there a designated person or individual or official who determines what schools or post-secondary educational institutions are actually recognized under this Pensions Act.

I am assuming a university like Memorial University will be recognized, I am assuming the College of the North Atlantic will be recognized. I don't know if a hockey school would be recognized, Mr. Speaker. I don't know what decisions will be made about whether a person is in school or not. I just wonder: How is that handled? How does the decision-making go? Is there an official within the Pensions Division who administers that particular provision.

I know the minister was engaged in a conversation, but can the minister explain how it is determined what schools are recognized? It says, recognized school or post-secondary institution. It has, someone over the age of eighteen or under the age twenty-five while they are in full-time attendance at a recognized school or post-secondary educational institution. It seems to me to be a rather loose interpretation at administration. Someone might be in school for one or two years and then they take a year off and then they go back to the school or go back to university. Is this something that they can get in and out of up until they are twenty-five, or do you have to keep going in order to keep the pension benefits?

I guess, the second question is: Who determines whether a school is recognized or not, a recognized school or post-secondary institution? I presume we are not talking about hockey schools here. I presume we are talking about people advancing their education, whether it be in university or college or some institution. I am just wondering whether there is a procedure, and who, in fact, determines what schools or post-secondary educational institutions are, in fact, recognized under this Act and the other pensions acts that make similar provisions? Is it something that has to be continuous or is it something that can be intermittent, that if you are not in school or in a post-secondary educational institute, you do not get the pension benefit as a child of a deceased pensioner, and is it something that you can re-qualify for if you re-attend post-secondary education in your twenty-third or twenty-fourth year? I do not know if the minister knows the answer to that question right off hand, but it is something that is, certainly, worthy of question and maybe the minister can find out for us.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, if the minister speaks now he will close debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With reference to, first of all, making the changes to bring it into consistency with all others, all other acts, MHAs' pension plan, the Public Service Pension Plan, all would have this provision in it to bring in consistency. As to what constitutes an institution that qualifies, it is my understanding - and this will be something, I guess, that will be established by the Department of Education training, I would think. I will give my opinion on it. I think an institution that is recognized is one that would be recognized by the department in which a person would be eligible to qualify for student aid to attend. It does not mean the individual has to qualify. It would be an institution that is recognized as being at a standard or meeting the qualifications of post-secondary, so that they would provide an opportunity to get funding to go there. That is my understanding of that specific one.

The bill is pretty explanatory in that, and I do not see any other interpretation of it. It says, if the principal beneficiary now is a person who is over eighteen or under twenty-five and attending a post-secondary institute, and it says full time attendance. From that, I think it is safe to say that if a person is over the age of eighteen and attends university for a semester and does not attend for another year or two years, and they come back in again, I think it is safe to draw the conclusion from that - I do not see any other interpretation - that if you not in full-time attendance you would not be eligible to receive that. You could be out working. You could be making $100,000 working up in Alberta somewhere and expect to get that pension. It is not intended for that purpose. It is intended to provide an income for a dependent of the person who had the pension, the right to receive that pension, to at least allow them to go through a period that might be a fairly hardship period with no other parent, to allow an income to flow to them while a person is in school at full-time attendance, whether it be in a high school, if it is usually under eighteen. You could be in high school and be over seventeen also. That is quite possible. That is the intent of it, that is consistent with the other acts, and that is why it is there.

Of course, there are two sections here. I will just mention this: By looking at the current bill that is there, clauses 2 and 3 in the bill, clause 2 would refer to the regular pension plan, the judges' pension plan, and clause 3 would be the supplementary plan. Once you get beyond the level you can contribute under the Income Tax Act, we had to set up a separate supplementary one, the CFS, just like we did with the MHAs and so on, so that would be paid. Clauses 2 and 3 take in both of these. They would not just get the portion that comes out of the judges' pension, they would also be eligible to get the 60 per cent amount that comes out of the supplementary part too to keep them whole. Even though you do not see any difference when you get a pension cheque, you do not see any difference there at all, it is coming from two sources technically, one is from the pension fund itself and some from the CFS. It is coming from that. You do not get two cheques, it is all in the one. It is just a bookkeeping one. You will get the same, you will get two cheques in a month, one at the middle and one at the end, but apart from that you will not get it all from one source. If you receive it long enough you should get twenty-four a year for however long you are going to receive these benefits.

With that, I think I answered the questions they asked there, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I move second reading of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan 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 Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act. (Bill 7)

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Later today.

MR. SPEAKER: Later today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow, by leave. (Bill 7)

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

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

Order 9, An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act, Bill 16.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is moved and seconded that Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act, be now read a second time.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today, as the Minister of Environment and Conservation, to introduce Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you. Thunderous applause from the other side, Mr. Speaker.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, a couple of things within this act. It is, very basically, that we are providing clarity to the existing administrative procedures. Currently, I, as the minister, can delegate the authority to people from my department to check out what some people would bring forward in terms of environmental issues. I delegate that authority to people within my department.

As part of this entire process, Government Services as well, carry out some of the duties. However, in the act it does not specifically state that the authority is delegated to Government Services, therefore under section 78 and 99, the tightening up of the Act will see that Government Services receives that authority and can carry out those orders.

As well, Mr. Speaker, under sections 91 and 92 of the Act, it requires that complainants who lodge a concern do so by submitting sworn affidavits. In this now amendment, we are proposing that is not necessarily the case. If an individual out there sees there is an environmental issue, they have the right to file directly without affidavits, therefore it gives the public that opportunity to do that without having to go through the route of sworn affidavits.

As well, under section 101, we are looking at ministerial orders that remain in place until a decision is made on an appeal. In that it does not explicitly say that, and we are being recommended by Justice that, that clause needs to be tightened up as well, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, this is another part of this amendment.

This amendment, Mr. Speaker, will take measures to assist the public and our staff in doing their work. If there is an issue out there, we want to be able to have the authority of both the Environment and Conservation Department and, as well, the Department of Government Services, who can carry out the work of the department and to ensure that activities that are taking place out there are in line with our expectation for the environment and fall within the Environmental Act.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude for now on that and certainly open the floor and look forward to what the members opposite have to say on this matter.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to congratulate my hon. colleague from Burin-Placentia West and the minister in terms of his first bill in the House of Assembly. It is nice to see him presenting his first bill.

I have no problem with this bill. As a matter of fact, I think it is good that it includes the Department of Government Services because I think that the Department of Environment, I guess, sets the regulations and sets the framework and has the legislation in place but the Department of Environment itself, in terms of the people out in the communities and out around the Province, do not have the staff to be able to enforce a lot of the things, whereas Government Services is all over the Province. I am not sure about Occupational Health and Safety. Is that part of Government Services now, too?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Yes, which indicates that a lot of these people now are out investigating a lot of these situations and are in place to lodge complaints.

To me, this is a worthwhile amendment to the act and it makes it more efficient and more effective. On this side, we will be supporting this amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is the shortest speech I have ever heard from the Member for Bellevue, Mr. Speaker. Obviously you must have gotten him in a good mood today, I say to the minister. It is your first bill presented in the House and you got the Member for Bellevue in a good mood, a complimentary mood and a very succinct mood.

Mr. Speaker, as to the bill itself, there are some aspects to this bill that I think are very positive. What it does is, in fact, ensure that there must be an investigation if two individuals are prepared to make an allegation or have a reasonable belief.

I think this is the important part: Where a person has a reasonable belief that there has been a contravention of the act and the regulations, that person may request that the department investigate the alleged contravention.

Of course, that allows the department to go ahead and make the investigation. The person making the allegation has to state the name and address of the person making the request, the nature of the alleged contravention, and the name of the people involved. I am assuming that person means company here, too, because often we have corporate entities, and the minister can correct that. I am sure there is a provision in the definition section of the act that ensures that a person is also a corporation or a company which may be violating the act and, thirdly, containing a concise statement of the evidence supporting the allegation.

That allows any individual, not just a peace officer, not just an investigator, not just a policeman or police officer. Any person can make this allegation. Of course, on the basis of such a report, the department may take action. That is actually provided for in the first part of it. A person may make reports regarding an enforcement of the act and the department may take the action that they consider necessary.

The important section here is the next section, clause 3, which says, "Where the minister receives 2 or more requests to investigate the same matter under section 91..." - which we just referred to - "...the minister shall investigate the matter to determine the facts of the alleged contravention."

There is a provision there that says if you have two people making the same allegation there must be an investigation. I think that is an interesting provision. I have not seen provisions like that before. I do not know where - maybe the minister can tell us - the idea came from. It is an interesting circumstance. Sometimes, someone might make a complaint and the department has a look at it and says: oh, well, we do not really think it is that important or that significant. They may not have time to do it. It may be that it is something they have looked at before, do not want to look at again, or they do not have time, or they do not have the people, resources in the area, and they do not get around to it. But now, if two people come forward and they make a request to investigate the same matter "... the minister shall investigate the facts to determine the facts of the alleged contravention."

Secondly, there is an obligation within ninety days after the receipt of the second request "...the minister shall report to the persons who made the request on the progress of the investigation and action proposed to be taken in respect to the alleged contravention."

I suppose, and maybe the minister can deal with this in Committee -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: It says persons, shall report to the persons, so it is not just each person who has made the complaint. If there are two or more people who have made the complaint, the minister must report to those people, to those individuals saying: Here is what we have done with respect to your complaint. Here are the facts that we have found out and here is the action that we propose to take. It may be no action at all. It may be that we find that we have done the investigation and we are satisfied that there isn't a contravention or it may be that we have talked to the individual or the company involved and they have agreed to fix the problem or they have agreed to stop the pollution. They have agreed to stop work until they get the right approval. They have agreed to do, you know, certain actions. That could be what happens, or it could be that the minister says we have conducted an investigation and we are satisfied that there is a contravention of the act and we have proceeded to lay charges against the company, which will go through the normal course of events.

Well, I think that is very positive, Mr. Speaker. It allows the citizens to participate in this. There are a lot of issues that citizens get worked up about, often with good reasons. Sometimes there may be alarmists and sometimes there may be complexities that they are not aware, but this is a procedure which requires a formal investigation if more than one person complains. I am sure there would be instances where, even if only one person complained, the minister would conduct a formal investigation if it is deemed appropriate. But here is something that says you have to, if there are two. I think that is a very interesting approach and one that, no doubt, will give some great comfort to people, particularly people who are involved in environmental organizations and groups who take a special interest in ensuring that the environment is protected and we do not have pollution taking place and there is a formal procedure that it takes.

I want to give an example, Mr. Speaker, of the kind of thing that can come up that may be of a more complex nature. It may require - you can raise it to the minister but the minister does not really have to do anything about it. There was an example a year or two ago where the City of St. John's was proposing to approve a subdivision up on Kenmount Road. There were complaints from a number of individuals, that by approving this particular residential subdivision, it was going to change the nature of the amount of water that was flowing into the whole river system of St. John's that would eventually cause flooding down on Quidi Vidi Lake and flooding on people who lived on The Boulevard. There was a reasonable concern that this was something that should be investigated by the Department of Environment who were kind of, in a sense, washing their hands, saying: Look, this is not our concern. This has to do with the City of St. John's.

That was a situation where the minister of the day was notified about it, had a look at it and was not really sure, but there was no formal response or no formal investigation that took place. That was a situation where these individuals who live, for example, down on The Boulevard, are saying: Look, you are going to put more water into those rivers and there was evidence that it would destroy fish habitat and make greater flooding. It would destroy the egg-laying habitat for fish in the streams and do a lot of other things without remediation. Some of the remediation being suggested was that you have holding tanks so that the water which was formerly saved by the wetlands - and I think we all know now that wetlands play a very important role. Marshes and wetlands play an important role in maintaining the watertable in allowing the flow of water to occur naturally and maintain the existing streams and rivers and prevent flooding and do all sorts of other things.

Well, there was a question that arose there: Were they contravening the act by not getting a permit, or not getting the permission of the Minister of Environment before this could be undertaken? That is something where individuals could now say: I want to complain about this. I have reason to believe that this proposal would violate the act and I want the minister to do something about it. If two people do bring that, the minister now would have to conduct a formal investigation, report back within ninety days to the people making the complaint. I think that is a very salutary amendment that will give citizens rights that they do not now have and expect government to respond in a formal way. So, I am very much in favour of this particular amendment as it refers to that.

It goes on, of course, to say that nothing in that particular section prevents the powers of the inspectors or other persons to carry out investigations. So the minister can still conduct whatever investigations are necessary, that his inspectors deem are necessary, that he instructs them to carry out. This, of course, does not interfere with that but it is an add-on.

I want to say, as I said at the beginning, this is the minister's first piece of legislation before the act. I want compliment him on his appointment to the Ministry of the Crown and wish him well in his new job. I will say that it is a very important job that he has as Minister of Environment and Conservation and I hope he takes to it with gusto.

While I am on my feet talking about environmental protection, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to another issue, but before that, I will ask a question about clause 1 of the bill. I would like to know why it is that the minister can authorize an official to issue, vary, amend or revoke approvals under this act. I know the minister has the right to give approvals under certain procedures, and there is a whole series of steps that have to be gone through to obtain approval under the Act. Are we now saying that regardless of all these steps having been taken, the minister can authorize an official to issue the approval, to vary the approval, to amend the approval, to revoke the approval, even though it has gone through all these procedures, or are we dealing with very specific minor amendments that might be necessary?

I would have a problem if, after all the effort - and I know members opposite, when they were over here, were going to tell the government how to fix the legislation, they were going to add a whole series of amendments. After all of that, we now have a new Environment Protection Act and the minister is now saying that the minister can authorize an official, an officer, an employee, to issue the approval, to vary approval, to amend the approval, or revoke approval, after all this procedure has gone to providing protection. Is this a very narrow type of delegation we are talking about, that the minister now as the authority to do? I haven't had an opportunity to discuss this with the minister or his officials, but if it is the later, if it is just a modification that the minister has authority within certain guidelines to do, I don't have a problem.

I wouldn't want to see the whole Act be destroyed by the minister saying: Okay, you can do what you like here. You can approve, vary, rescind or amend the approval without having to go through any particular procedure. I do recognize it is under section 78 and I haven't had a chance to look in detail at that. Maybe I will get a chance to do that between now and the Committee stage if we don't rush into it this afternoon.

In raising the Environmental Protection Act, Mr. Speaker, I do want to raise a concern that has been brought to my attention recently by a number of individuals involved in an environmental group at Memorial University. They have drawn to my attention the issue of the Duck Pond Mine in Central Newfoundland which is been organized by Aur Resources - A-u-r; ore resources or our resources, I am not sure how it is pronounced. Ore Resources sounds right. They have a proposal to develop a mine at Duck Pond that is very far along. One of the parts of their proposal is actually to take a couple of ponds, I think Trout Pond is one of them and a pond nearby which is unnamed, and they are part of the watershed of Noel Paul's Brook and eventually the Exploits River watershed, to take those ponds and to use those ponds as a tailings pond, not to build a tailings pond, not to build an artificial one, but to, in fact, use those ponds as a tailings pond. That is something that is contrary to federal legislation under the Fisheries Act. It is something that is not permitted under the Fisheries Act of Canada, and under the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations it is not permitted to do that. You cannot take a live aquatic body and turn it into a tailings dump.

Now, when they passed those regulations they said: Well, we are going to grandfather - I do not know if you are allowed to say grandfather any more; maybe you have to be politically correct and say grandfather or grandmother, but anyway I think we know what we are talking about - we are going to make an exemption for existing mining operations that use live aquatic bodies as tailing ponds, and we listed four or five of them in the schedule to the act. Now the Province was involved in this, even though it is federal legislation, and the provincial Department of Environment approved the use of these two ponds as tailings ponds, even though there was a concern that this was contrary to the act.

Mr. Speaker, what Aur Resources has to do is that they have to actually damn up these ponds and ensure that whatever goes into this pond, and it includes cyanide and other assets that they are using as part of their development, that they are going to damn up these ponds and ensure that the water from these ponds no longer goes into Noel Paul's Brook and into the Exploits, and those damns need to be monitored and maintained in perpetuity. The mine itself, according to the original proposal, was to last six to eight years. Yet, the change in the natural habitat by taking these ponds and destroying their living habitat, and the damns that have to be placed to keep the water in those ponds, is going to have to be maintained in perpetuity, long after the mine is gone and finished.

I am shocked to realize that this government had approved that several years ago. We are talking about approval that had taken place a couple of years ago, I think, under the term, not of this particular minister, of the previous minister, and the government had approved the use of these tailings ponds even though it was destroying existing ponds, did not provide for an artificial containment.

Now, Aur Resources has a mine in Quebec. They are 30 per cent owners of a mine in Quebec. There, in Quebec, they have an artificial tailings pond since 1994, but in Newfoundland they are coming here to develop this resource and: Oh, no, we are not going to do that. We are going to take these two ponds and we are going to use them as our tailings dump.

The reason given at the time, Mr. Speaker - and maybe the minister has not been briefed on this particular proposal. I hope he has, because it has been the subject of public meetings in Buchans in recent weeks, and the subject of interviews on the radio in Central Newfoundland on a couple of occasions. I was participating in one this morning, because I have written to - I do not know if we copied the minister. It was only last Friday that I wrote to the federal Minister of Fisheries and also to federal official who gazetted this exemption last Friday, or gazetted this exemption which has to be responded to by last Friday, objecting to the approval of adding this to the schedule to the act.

What is going on, Mr. Speaker, across the country there are people in environmental watchdog groups saying this is not only detrimental to the two ponds that are being destroyed, essentially, in Central Newfoundland, but it apparently is being watched very carefully by mining companies across the country who are saying: Aha! Here we have a way of getting around the expense of having to build an artificial containment place. All we have to do is apply for an exemption under the act and say, as Aur Resources said, that the alternative would be too expensive and we can get an exemption under the federal Fisheries Act.

Mr. Speaker, I had a look at the commodities prices. I suppose it is like the Inco deal, Mr. Speaker. Inco came to the Province when the price for nickel was down at $1.50 a pound. Now, finished nickel is selling for $7 a pound, or plus, Mr. Speaker, and, of course, they are making a fortune on it. They come to the Province and say: Well, boy, this is a pretty marginal operation. We need a good deal. We need a good deal on royalties. We need exemptions for this. We need to bring our ore, not by the spoonful but by the truckload, the boat load and the commodity carrier load, off to someplace outside of the Province because the economics are such that it requires it.

Well, the same thing, apparently, has happened with respect to Aur Resources, because the price of copper, the price of zinc, the price of gold, the price of silver, all of which are going to be mined at Duck Pond, were, in some cases, at all-time lows. The price of gold was at an all-time low in recent years, a twenty-year low at least.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: It might be $800 tomorrow, but when they got this exemption from the government it was on the basis that the alternatives for them were too expensive. Now, the price of copper has quadrupled from what it was then. The price of zinc has doubled, and the price of gold is, as the Minister of Finance will know - he must have shares, I don't know. Maybe he has gold.

MR. SULLIVAN: I have shares in nothing

MR. HARRIS: He has shares in nothing. He must just have gold bars. He converted all of his money into gold bars and he has them in a piggy bank somewhere.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) buy gold, though.

MR. HARRIS: He says, buy gold. Well, I think these are people who are going to mine gold. They are going mine gold, they are going to mine silver, they are going to cooper and they are going to mine zinc. They are going to mine it at high prices but they have this exemption, I say to the Minister of Finance, they have this exemption or they have this exemption from environmental protection through when the price was low. They said that the cost of doing artificial containment was too high.

I think it is time, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Environment reviewed this and found out what exactly was going on when the exemption was given to the cooper, zinc, gold mine at Duck Pond to Aur Resource, because if it is good enough for Quebec, Mr. Speaker, in protecting the environment there, it is certainly good enough for Newfoundland and Labrador, and I do not think we should be making exemptions.

This is a pretty slippery slope. Once you say to a company that you do not have to meet these environmental standards because it is going to cost you too much money, well, every single person who comes - it is always more expensive, I would assume, to meet environmental restrictions then it is to go willy-nilly and do what you like with the environment. It is probably always more expensive, and any time someone comes to the Minster of Environment and says, I would like to meet your requirements but it is going to cost me too much money and I might not be able to do my project, then they will come with cap in hand looking for an exemption from environmental protection. I think it sets a very dangerous precedent for environmental protection if it is easy to get these kinds of exemptions here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I know the minister is a new minister and he may not have been briefed on this particular matter, but I think it is something that he should look into because it is now before the Government of Canada questioning their exemption and I think Aur Resources is going to come back to the government and seek more environmental approvals because I understand - now, I may be wrong but I understand - that Aur Resources is now proposing a camp instead of a drive-in operation. They are proposing a camp on the site and may have to come back for more environmental approvals. In that process, I hope that this minister is going to be able to review the whole matter and go through the public procedure and open the thing open for further review.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, the amendment, particularly where it allows for individuals to come forward and, as a result of two individuals coming forward, the minister must investigate, it is certainly very positive for environmental protection and presumably to help those people interested in the environment to pursue that protection through a formal process.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we support the amendment in principle, and I look forward to the minister's comments particularly with respect to clause 1 of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. Minister of Environment and Conservation speaks now he will close the debate on second reading of Bill 16.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to clause 1- and I thank the Member for Bellevue -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. JACKMAN: Here we go.

Clause 1, Mr. Speaker, in response: This is not a random delegation. It is certainly not a random delegation. The officials who will be selected within that and who the authority delegates will certainly be specific and the latitude very narrow. The thing in this entire Act is that, at this point officials from Government Services, as the Member for Bellevue alluded to, are out in the field and it is not clear in the Act that they can be delegated this authority, therefore this Act will ensure that.

In response to the two or more requests, I have to say to the hon. member, at this point I am not certain on that but I will get that information, and I probably can relay that to you in Committee.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about it, the amendments to this act we take the issue of within our environment. You know, we have looked at some of the things that we are putting in place in terms of our government under the Sustainable Development Act and the Natural Areas Systems Plan and so on and so forth, and, you know, in this Budget we have allocated funds to that, to ensure that the youth of our Province have an environment that they can enjoy to the same extent that we have enjoyed and past generations have enjoyed. In that regard, initiatives such as the Sustainable Development Act and the Natural Areas Systems Plan show our government's commitment to the environment.

In this particular act, what we are doing is we want to, first, ensure that we have clarity within the act and that we have expediency. Nowhere, I do not think, would anybody want to step out and, all of a sudden, see something that they think is detrimental to the environment and not be able to act.

What we are also doing is cutting away some of the red tape here, that should a person have an issue they now have the freedom and the latitude to come forward immediately and, once they lodge a complaint, then I, as the minister, through the delegation of people within my department and through Government Services, can go out and investigate those matters.

Mr Speaker, in closing again, all I can say is these amendments are with the intention of clarifying and tightening up the Act a little. Now I move second reading of the Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection 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 Environmental Protection Act. (Bill 16)

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Later today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act," read a second time, ordered referred to the Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 16)

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

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

Order 11, An Act To Repeal The Obsolete Acts And To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, Bill 17.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is moved and seconded that Bill 17, An Act To Repeal Obsolete Acts And To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, be now read a second time.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill today. This bill will repeal three obsolete Acts, the Lodgers' Goods Protection Act, the Salvage Dealers Licensing Act, and the Automobile Dealers Act. The bill also makes a related amendment to the Highway Traffic Act, which is necessary as a result of the appeal of the Automobile Dealers Act.

This bill is part of government's red tape reduction and will result in the elimination of 179 regulatory requirements making it easier for companies to do business in this Province while protecting our consumers.

I will now summarize the main points of these three Acts being repealed, as well as the related amendment to the Highway Traffic Act.

Repeal the Lodgers' Goods Protection Act: The Lodgers' Goods Protection Act is an outdated legislation of 1970. It is no longer necessary. The Residential Tendency Act proclaimed in 2000 is more moderate legislation and it deals with the tenants disputes, including unpaid rent. The repeal of the act will result in the elimination of seven regulatory requirements.

Repeal of the Salvage Dealers Licensing Act: The Salvage Dealers Licensing Act is necessary and in some ways duplicated legislation. Salvage yards are required to obtain a certificate of approval from this department under the Environmental Protection Act. With respect to the sale of used goods, the police have much more information on stores that sell used goods for the purpose of trading stolen goods than provided under the Salvage Dealers Act. The act is in effect for this purpose.

The repeal of this act will result in the elimination of forty-four regulatory requirements. The repeal of the Automobile Dealers Act: Government is proposing to repeal the Automobile Dealers Act in order to eliminate unnecessary duplication in regulation. Currently, automobile dealers who are incorporated have to fall under the Automobile Dealers Act on an annual basis, fall under the Corporations Act on a annual basis, and obtain a one-time licence at the Motor Registration Division. After repeal, one annual filing will be eliminated.

The main consumer protection in the Act was the requirement to place down payments on automobiles in a trust account. There is no need for this requirement anymore as automobiles have not been sold on that basis for many years. Consumer protection will not be compromised as the Trade Practices Act provides protection for consumers when purchasing all goods and services including automobiles. This will eliminate 128 regulatory requirements.

The amendment to the Highway Traffic Act: At the same time the Automobile Dealers Act is repealed, we propose to amend the Highway Traffic Act to allow Motor Registration to regulate certain forms and licences for dealers. In the past, the Registrar had to rely on the Automobile Dealers Act for that purpose. Automobile dealers will have to file only once and to pay only a one-time fee under the Highway Traffic Act, while they currently have to file annually and pay an annual fee under the Automobile Dealers Act.

Mr. Speaker, this concludes my remarks, and I welcome the debate from the hon. members.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am a little bit distracted here now. I am hearing my name taken in vain somewhere along the way, so, minister, give me some indulgence here now to refocus on what I was going to say.

Mr. Speaker, I rise and offer my commentary regarding Bill 17. The Leader of the Opposition a little while ago made a comment about the parties be obsolete. Well, there were a number of acts there today that, I think, we could have declared obsolete and had them repealed, but nevertheless we are on to a different part of the business.

I agree with the minister, it is necessary from time to time to review our legislation and adjust accordingly as to what may not apply to today's society. What I am wondering about, minister, will any of these acts have any negative affects on the people of the Province with regard to consumer? I know there are mechanisms there in place, you say under Consumer Protection Act and so on. I am a little bit concerned about some of these changes because sometimes without any of these things happening, without prior notice or prior notification to the public, I am just wondering if anything would have an effect?

I know the Lodgers' Goods Protection Act, that is a rather old act from back in the 1970s. I am pretty well familiar with that one. There is one there that concerns me quite a bit, and that is the Salvage Dealers Act. Oftentimes, I know in the Province there are situations regarding criminal activity, regarding car thief, thief of ATVs and so on. Just a few days ago my neighbour was involved in an incident where he lost his ATV. It was on the way to be scrapped and sold as parts. Thank God, we live in Conception Bay North and areas like Carbonear, where not a lot of that is happening - knock on wood - regarding the thief of vehicles. I know here in the city every now and then you pick up the paper or you turn on the news, and unfortunately it is more often than not, that you see about that, that there is a car stolen and taken out to some remote part of the city or remote part of the countryside and the car is scrapped down and sold.

The automobile Salvage Dealers Act had a fair amount of regulations in there, I know, but a lot of them were put in there for a purpose. It was put in for the purpose of protecting the ordinary citizens of this Province. I hope there is some method there, minister, that would make sure that the consumer is protected; that we have not lost - because we are trying to cut some red tape here - the means to protect the ordinary consumer from losing his or her vehicle to a ring of professional car thieves, or amateur car thieves, who will take it down somewhere and have the thing scrapped in the countryside and parts taken away and so on. So, that, to me, is an important part of it.

The other part of it - again, I understand where the government is coming from. They are reducing red tape. In the last Budget, for instance, the automobile dealers in the Province received a reduction in fees. I would rather, personally, see the consumer receive a reduction in taxes when they have to pay for a vehicle. There is always the question, I guess: Will there be any negative impact? Unfortunately, in most cases with governments, you can only find that out after the fact that the bill has been implemented. So, minister, I wonder: Is there provision anywhere in this bill, or in your department, where somebody who has been impacted negatively - would they have the opportunity or access to any mechanism that they could have their problems fixed?

It is always wise, minister, to keep an eye on what is happening in the automotive industry in this Province, in the sale of automobiles, because there are a lot of things - when you buy an automobile, whether it is new or used in this Province, it is a major purchase for most people in this Province. I feel that there has to be a complaint mechanism available to the consumer. Sometimes the Consumer Protection Act does not always cover all of the things that can happen to a person out there because many times a vehicle is sold in an as is, where is condition. Many times the consumer is left with not being really clear on what they have bought.

It is quite interesting that this bill comes in a few days after a member, actually of the Automobile Dealers Association, was on the evening news. I think the gentleman's name was Chris Power. He was talking about - and very nicely done, actually, for a businessperson to warn the consumer. Mr. Power did take the initiative to warn the consumer to be aware of the Katrina vehicles that are trickling up from the United States.

AN HON. MEMBER: What vehicles?

MR. SWEENEY: Katrina, the big storm in Louisiana and Mississippi. There are quite a few of those vehicles that did go to salvage dealers, were cleaned up, taken - what they call in the car business - laundered and brought over to another State and find their way up through a myriad of paperwork into Canada. We all know, as Mr. Power said, it is only a matter of time before these vehicles will find their way into our Province, if they have not already found their way in here.

So, minister, I am not going to speak against this, but I want to be sure - because I agree, anything we can do to help the consumer and the industry. Sometimes maybe when we do something to help the industry we may be doing something to hurt the consumer. I want to be sure that there is a mechanism in place, that somewhere in the system and in the process, that the consumer will still be protected, because we live in a small province and we live in a province where I think there is - the government says $30,000 is a figure where they will help with housing and grants and so on, drug plans and everything else, but for many consumers, if they purchase a vehicle, if it is $5,000 or $10,000, it is a major purchase for them. I do not think anyone should be left in a situation where they pay for a car and they do not have the means to go back and seek some recourse from the dealer.

So, those are the things that I would like to see mentioned. If this does offer more protection to the consumer, then the members on this side will not stand in the way of this bill passing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise today to make a few comments on Bill 17. More importantly, Mr. Speaker, there is not much in the amendment that we disagree with. We support the amendment as it is written but this particular amendment speaks to protection, consumer protection. On that topic, Mr. Speaker, I want to use a few minutes to talk about how consumers should be protected. I want to use, as an example, something that legislation should protect people from but unfortunately it does not. What I am referring to is the rates and fares that are charged by Air Canada, for example, in our country today.

Earlier this week, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if all members seen the release that I put out on Friday of last week, but there are some very alarming things here that Air Canada should be held responsible for. I want to say that it is ridiculous - and I will read the parts to you that I think most people find absolutely, utterly disgusting when it comes to the rates that are in effect with Air Canada in this country today. An airline, I might point out, that the taxpayers of this country have been very generous to over a long number of years. I feel, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure many others do, that Air Canada should not be treating Canadians the way that they are treating them today.

Mr. Speaker, I want to give you some numbers here. If you have a death in your family and you live in - I will use Wabush as an example - the Town of Wabush, and you have a death in your family in London, England, and you go to the Air Canada ticket counter and say that somebody in your family passed away over in London and you want to get to the funeral, the same day you can travel to England, return, for $1,200.78. Keep those figures in mind, I ask members, $1,200.78. If your family member died in Frankfurt, Germany, you could travel to Frankfurt, Germany, from the Town of Wabush, return, for $1,727. From Wabush to Buenos Aires, $1,729. Get this, Mr. Speaker: From Wabush to Hong Kong, if a family member passed away in Hong Kong and you went to the ticket counter in Wabush and said, I need to go to Hong Kong to attend a funeral, the total fare, return, is $1,708; but, if you go to the ticket counter again in the Town of Wabush at the airport and say, I have a family member who passed away in Fredericton, New Brunswick, guess what? You will be asked to pay $2,505. If it is a day later during the week, Mr. Speaker, that number jumps to $2,800, return, to travel in your own country.

If anybody or any corporation can justify that, I do not know how they can do it. They would never justify it to me, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure they would never justify it to many other Canadians in our country.

Now, their justification for that is that they offer their Tango rates, which are lower than what their compassionate rate used to be, and that may be so - I am not questioning that for a minute - but there is a problem with that. When you live in locations where Air Canada does not offer fifteen or twenty or twenty-five flights a day, your chance of getting one of those fares is next to none, because they are all booked in advance, so you have to pay when you have to travel. When you need to travel, at a time when you least want to be hit with a bill this size, you have to pay through the nose in order to fly in this county with a carrier that carries our national flag as its emblem and referred to as our national carrier.

That is totally ridiculous and should not be allowed to continue. The people of this country should not be held to ransom by a carrier that is charging these exorbitant rates.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, to add insult to injury, just prior to coming back to the House of Assembly, I had a phone call from the corporate office in Montreal. The person on the phone from Air Canada wanted to know who the individual was that I was referring to. I said: Well, why would you want to know that? He said: Well, we are quite taken aback by the prices that you quoted. I said: Well, if you are taken aback and you are the one charging them, imagine how the person felt who was asked to pay this money to travel to his mother's funeral? That is the person who was taken aback. You shouldn't be taken aback. You should know what you are charging consumers of this country to fly on your aircraft.

Well, he said, look -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I do not disagree with what the member is saying. I have no issue with what the member is saying. The only point I will raise - it has been raised with me, actually, and I think it is important for consistency - is the relevance of your talk with respect to the relevance of the bill that we are debating. If you could draw a link between that so I could understand it, just to give me some sense. I am not trying, because it is -

MR. R. COLLINS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, okay, if you could.

I just raise it, Mr. Speaker, to the member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you very much.

I think the word consistently, debate consistent with the legislation, is probably something I have seen very little of, in this House. Probably it is rare that it could be called unparliamentary, I say to the minister, because anything is a stretch.

What this bill is, it is talking about consumer protection, and I do not know of any other issue where I have seen the consumer gouged more than I have seen by what they are being charged to travel on Air Canada -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. COLLINS: - for compassionate reasons.

MR. E. BYRNE: I needed you to make the connection for me.

MR. R. COLLINS: Okay.

I am glad I made the connection and I never charged you too much to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, getting back to a more serious note, you know, people should not be allowed to be charged rates like that in this country, to travel not even outside of Atlantic Canada.

To add insult to injury, when they told me that they wanted to reimburse this person, because of the fares they were being charged, it was almost like they were ashamed of their own rates that they are charging.

I can see where people get upset when they go to an airline counter and are asked to pay this kind of money when someone in their family passes away and they really need to get there to be with their family. It is not right, and something should be done.

I have spoken to the provincial Minister of Transportation. I will be speaking with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and I will be writing the federal minister because I think this is an issue that needs to be placed on the agenda. I think it is something that needs to be discussed. Air Canada needs to be pressured or browbeaten into falling in line with other carriers in this country who do not even come close to charging the rates that Air Canada is charging in cases like this.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not highway robbery; it is airway robbery.

MR. R. COLLINS: It is airway robbery, yes, the member is correct. It is not highway robbery; it is airway robbery.

Given the fact that I have stretched a bit to make my debate fit the bill, I will conclude my comments with that, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Government House Leader for understanding the connection that I drew.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Government Services - I ask the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi if he is standing up to be recognized?

MR. HARRIS: I am, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I do want to refer mainly to a passing comment made by the minister who told the House, without any explanation, that part of the purpose of this bill was to get rid of the Lodgers' Goods Protection Act because it was obsolete. I just had a look at the act, Mr. Speaker, and the Lodgers' Goods Protection Act makes sure that if a landlord takes the goods of a lodger for arrears of rent that the lodger has a right to get those goods back if he makes sure the rent is paid.

I would just like to know why it is that this is obsolete, that if somebody has goods that they have left in a rental premises and it is taken by the landlord, the landlord takes their goods, all of a sudden it is obsolete because now the minister is going to say that bill is obsolete because people cannot get their goods back.

Unless there is some protection somewhere else, maybe the Landlord Tenant Act looks after it, maybe the minister has an explanation, but it is not sufficient to say that this legislation is obsolete just because the minister says so.

I think we should have an explanation to make sure that she can tell us, when she closes debate, what protection there is for the tenants, for their goods that might be distrained by a landlord in circumstances where the goods are taken. We do have situations, Mr. Speaker, all of the time, where a landlord decides to change the locks on someone's -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I think I have the floor here. When I finish, I guess someone else can take the floor.

We do have lots of situations where the landlord decides to change the lock and put the goods of the tenant out in the garbage dump and say: You have not paid your rent, so therefore we changed the locks and out you go. If the minister can explain to us where the protection for the lodger or tenant is in those circumstances, then perhaps the House needs to hear that, than rather than just say: As far as we are concerned, it is obsolete.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I do not have any objections to the other parts of the legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. Minister of Government Services speaks now, she will close the debate on second reading of Bill 17, An Act To Repeal Obsolete Acts And To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: I just want to tell the hon. member that this comes under the Residential Tenancies Act. That was new legislation that was proclaimed in 2000. It deals with tenants' disputes, including the unpaid rent, so it can be dealt with there.

I just want to also make note that there is no other jurisdiction - the other hon. member raised a comment about the Salvage Dealers Act, there is no other Salvage Dealers Act in any other jurisdiction. The Salvage Dealers Act has to get a certificate of approval from Government Services. In some ways, it is duplicated legislation.

Also, there is nothing in the Act now to protect against the type of situation you raised about stolen cars. As noted earlier, the police have much better information than is provided under this legislation. In all of the acts, the repeal of these acts will not diminish in any way the rights of the protection of our consumer.

I just want to say, in the Automobile Dealers Act there was a provisions there, an amendment, because years ago when you bought a car you had to make a down payment and put it into a trust account. It has been many years since they put down payments on cars.

This is what the legislation is about. It is also one of government's initiatives for red tape reductions, and it eliminates 179 regulatory requirements with this bill coming forth.

On that note, Mr. Speaker, I would like to close my remarks.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 17 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 Repeal Obsolete Acts And To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, Bill 17.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Later today.

MR. SPEAKER: Later today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Repeal Obsolete Acts And To Amend The Highway Traffic Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 17)

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

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

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider matters related to the bills that we have discussed this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on certain bills.

Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on certain 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.

MADAM CHAIR: (Osborne): The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Move to Committee stage on Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Act.

MADAM CHAIR: Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Act.

CLERK: Clause 1.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Clause 3.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 3 carried.

CLERK: Clause 4.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 4 carry?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 4 carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, the enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act to Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall I report the bill passed without amendments?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Committee reading of Bill 19, An Act Respecting The Practice of Physiotherapy.

MADAM CHAIR: Bill 19, An Respecting The Practice Of Physiotherapy.

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice Of Physiotherapy." (Bill 19)

CLERK: Clause 1

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 37 inclusive.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 37 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 37 carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Physiotherapy.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall I report the bill passed without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Move to Committee stage debate on Bill 17, An Act To Repeal Obsolete Acts And To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.

MADAM CHAIR: Bill 17, An Act To Repeal Obsolete Acts And To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.

A bill, "An Act To Repeal Obsolete Acts And To Amend The Highway Traffic Act." (Bill 17)

CLERK: Clause 1.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 2 is carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Clause 3.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 3 is carried.

On motion, clause 3 carried.

CLERK: The Schedule.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the Schedule carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The Schedule is carried.

On motion, Schedule carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 17 passed without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Move to Committee stage debate on Bill 12, An Act Respecting The Convention On The Settlement Of Investment Disputes Between States And Nationals Of Other States.

MADAM CHAIR: Bill 12, An Act Respecting The Convention On The Settlement Of Investment Disputes Between States And Nationals Of Other States.

A bill, "An Act To Respecting The Convention On The Settlement Of Investment Disputes Between States And Nationals Of Other States. (Bill 12)

CLERK: Clause 1.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I understand the minister was going to consult with officials and have some answers to the very penetrating questions asked by members opposite concerning this important piece of legislation. I do not know if he has the answers by now.

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

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

I have consulted with the officials who worked on the implementation of this international convention. The hon. Member for Burgeo & LaPoile raised some concerns with respect to section 5, which says: the Act binds the Crown, other than a Crown corporation of the Province. It was mentioned that this appeared to be unusual. The facts are, that the ICSID Convention is only between contracting States, it could be contracting countries and the Crown. Only the States can recognize the validity of an arbitration decision made under the convention. Agents of the Crown would not have any authority to recognize the decisions. The convention is only between States, and it is not made between the agents of the States.

With respect to clause 12(b) raised by the hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party. Clause 12(b) gives the Lieutenant-Governor in Council the authority to make regulations. The wording says that: exempting a person or class of persons from the application of an enactment or a provision of it, on those conditions that may be specified in the regulations, to permit them to act in a professional capacity in an arbitration or conciliation proceeding.

Now, I am advised that there may be an enactment in the country that prohibits a certain individual from acting as an arbitrator in our country. What this does, it allows the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to pass a regulation that would remove the prohibition. So that people involved in the arbitration agree that the person who is otherwise prohibited from acting as arbitrator can be the arbitrator -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. T. MARSHALL: Exactly. Then the Lieutenant-Governor in Council will pass a regulation exempting that person from being prohibited.

So, with that, Madam Chair, I would urge the passing of the legislation.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 13 inclusive.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 13 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 to 13 are carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 13 carried.

CLERK: Schedule.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the Schedule carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Schedule is carried.

On motion, schedule carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Convention On The Settlement Of Investment Disputes Between The States And Nationals Of Other States.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall I report the bill, Bill 12, passed without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 12 is carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Order 3, Committee of the Whole debate on a bill, An Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act. (Bill 8)

I say to my colleague, not Bill 10, I apologize, but Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act.

MADAM CHAIR: Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act.

CLERK: Clause 1.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 15 inclusive.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 15 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 to 15 are carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 15 carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 8 carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Committee stage debate on Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Securities Act.

MADAM CHAIR: Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Securities Act.

CLERK: Clause 1.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The amendment to the Securities Act effectively delegates the authority to pass rules that contradict our act to the Superintendent of Insurance. That is an extremely unusual provision, Madam Chair. Legislation passed in this House is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I do not have it written. I did not realize you were going to bring it up today.

The legislation delegates that authority to the Superintendent of Insurance to agree to rules that could effectively contradict the existing act. This act says that these rules, if they conflict with the act, prevail over the act itself. Now, that is an extremely unusual provision, Madam Chair. I questioned it yesterday at second reading in terms of constitutional law and that we should not delegate our legislative authority to somebody else, that this is something that is contrary to the rule of law, that the Legislature here is the authority passing legislation.

The normal rule of law, if there is a conflict between the legislation and the regulation, it is the act that applies, not the regulations passed by Cabinet. In this case, we are going even further in saying, not only would the regulations supercede the act, but rules passed by the superintendent or agreed to by the superintendent with superintendents of other jurisdictions across the country will also supercede the act. Now -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) harmonized rules, it says here.

MR. HARRIS: I understand it says the harmonized rules. The harmonized rules means the rule agreed to by the superintendent of securities for Newfoundland and their respective counterparts across the country, for example, the harmonized rule that would actually overrule the legislation of this Legislature. That is an extremely unusual provision.

I did have discussions yesterday with the minister and officials and suggested that perhaps a solution would be, because there was some concern that over the coming months, while the Legislature is not in session, there may be some work done on harmonizing rules that the Province might be prepared to agree to. These are often of a technical nature. I recognize that this point that I am making is an important legal point but it may not be of enormous consequence in that the officials are looking for authority to proceed with the process over the summer with there being an overhauled act coming before the Legislature in the fall. What I suggested to the minister, and we have not yet agreed on the wording for an amendment and I was not aware it was going to come before the House just so quickly, is that there be an amendment that would ensure that any conflicts with the existing legislation, existing Security Act that were disclosed by the harmonized rules agreed to, ought to be brought before the Legislature. If that can be set aside for - I would ask that the Government House Leader would stand that particular bill down for a few minutes and I can - until I get the chance to allow the minister to consider an amendment, consider other matters, if that is agreeable to the Government House Leader.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I do not have any difficulty in acquiescing, I guess, to the request made by the member. He is making, in his view, a point that he wishes to further elaborate on. I mean that is what we are here for, I guess, to debate all sides of any and all pieces of legislation.

So, with respect to that, Madam Chair, I would like to move Committee stage debate of Bill 16, An Act to Amend The Environmental Protection Act.

MADAM CHAIR: Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act.

CLERK: Clause 1.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 2 is carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Clause 3.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 3 is carried.

On motion, clause 3 carried.

CLERK: Clause 4.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 4 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 4 is carried.

On motion, clause 4 carried.

CLERK: Clause 5.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 5 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 5 is carried.

On motion, clause 5 carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 16 carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The bill is carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

MADAM CHAIR: It has been moved that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

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 St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 7, Bill 19, Bill 17, Bill 12, Bill 8 and Bill 16 passed without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed her to report a number of bills passed without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said 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.

MR. SPEAKER: Has leave been granted?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move to third reading of Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 8 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act. (Bill 8)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 8 has now been a read third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 8)

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

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

I move third reading of Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act, be now be read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 7 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act. (Bill 7)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 7 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 7)

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

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

I move third reading of a bill, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Physiotherapy. (Bill 19)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 19, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Physiotherapy, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 19 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 Respecting The Practice Of Physiotherapy. (Bill 19)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 19, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Physiotherapy, has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice Of Physiotherapy," 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 Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 16 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act. (Bill 16)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 16 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 16)

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

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

I move third reading of Bill 17, An Act To Repeal Obsolete Acts And To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 17 be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 17 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 Repeal Obsolete Acts And To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 17)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 17, An Act To Repeal Obsolete Acts And To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, 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 Repeal Obsolete Acts And To Amend The Highway Traffic Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 17)

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

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

I move third reading of Bill 12, An Act Respecting The Convention On The Settlement Of Investment Disputes Between States And Nationals Of Other States.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 12, An Act Respecting The Convention On The Settlement Of Investment Disputes Between States And Nationals Of Other States, be read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 12 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 Respecting The Convention On The Settlement Of Investment Disputes Between States And Nationals Of Other States. (Bill 12)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 12 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Convention On The Settlement Of Investment Disputes Between States And Nationals Of Other States," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 12)

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

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

I want to thank all members who participated in the debate today in moving forward legislation that was important to the areas that legislation spoke to.

With that, I want to remind members that tomorrow, again, is not Private Members' Day. The House will open at 1:30 p.m. tomorrow, as if it were a regular government business day.

With that, I do now move that the House adjourn until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 1:30 p.m.