MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's North; the hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile; the hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista South; the hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; and the hon. the Member for the District of Trinity North.

The Chair recognizes the Member for the District of Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to extend congratulations to the members of John Burke Masquerade, the drama troupe from John Burke High School in Grand Bank on their performance of MmmBeth, which is a take off, of course, on Macbeth. The performance won the praise of both the audience and judges of the 2006 Burin Peninsula Regional Drama Festival held at Marystown Central High School recently.

The troupe were crowned the festival's overall winner and also picked up the Audience Choice Award for the play written by Canadian writer, Allison Williams, and directed by John Burke High'S drama teacher, Yvonne Powell.

John Burke High student, Brittany Matthews, was named the best female actor in the festival.

The performers will travel to Grand Falls-Windsor, May 11 to May 13, to represent the Burin Peninsula at the thirtieth annual provincial high school drama festival hosted by the Nova Central School District.

The cast of the John Burke Masquerade include: John D'Eon; Kurt Warren; Jessica Prior; Nigel Warren; Brittany Matthews; Jennifer Lake, Rebecca Stuckey; Robyn Matthews; Danielle Billiard; Robyn Kearley; Jason Stewart; Tyler Engram; Cindy Hillier; Stephanie Eveleigh; director Yvonne Powell, and assistant director Carol Callahan.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating John Burke Masquerade on their win and wish them well at the provincial high school drama festival.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to highlight the efforts of St. John's Clean and Beautiful, a non-profit, volunteer-based organization that is dedicated to reducing litter through increasing environmental awareness and encouraging beautification projects by involving the community.

St. John's Clean and Beautiful was established in 1991 and became incorporated in 1992 as a non-profit organization and, since that time, has won numerous awards and received other forms of recognition for its programs and achievements.

One indication of the contribution that has been made by this organization is the fact that, since 1991,over 85,000 volunteers have invested almost 200,000 hours making St. John's a cleaner, more beautiful city. This has obviously served to create a spirit of pride in our capital city and makes it one of the most attractive tourist destinations in North America.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, May 15, marks the start of: Take Pride - Take Action, a five week program undertaken by St. John's Clean and Beautiful designed to motivate citizens to organize litter cleanups in their neighbourhoods. I encourage neighbourhood groups, schools, tenant associations to get involved in this campaign.

I ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating St. John's Clean and Beautiful on past accomplishments and to wish them every success in this current venture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for District of Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to congratulate Burgeo Academy students, as well as the junior and senior choirs, who travelled to Stephenville to participate in the annual Stephenville Rotary Music Festival and would also like to recognize the amount of talent these students have.

The junior choir received 84 per cent on their performance at the festival and the senior choir received 86 per cent and second place overall. As well as the choirs performing, several other students performed at the festival: Dylan MacDonald; Jeremy MacDonald; Jeanette Tucker; Dominique Ingram and Tyson Cutler.

Mr. Speaker, when Burgeo Academy held their annual spring concert a few days after the festiva,l there sure was a lot of talent displayed. The talent included piano, karaoke, recorders, guitars and singing. Zachary Clothier was the MC for the evening; Miss Kendall's Grade 4 to 7 music classes played pieces on their recorders; the piano students performed pieces they had been working on; senior students Tyler Neil, Shane Crant and Nolan Short played guitars and sang; Sara Durnford accompanied by Travis Durnford played guitar and sang; and the junior and senior choirs, accompanied by local talents Tom Cutler, Stacey Pink and Derrick Mercer, entertained the audience.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join with me in congratulating the students of Burgeo Academy on their wonderful musical talent and on the success the students had at the Stephenville Rotary Music Festival.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, recently I had the opportunity to present four members of the Lethbridge and area Volunteer Fire Department with long-term service awards: Mr. Wesley Holloway, Mr. Randy Diamond, Mr. Ewan Palmer and Mr. Jacob Barber. Each of those recipients received a certificate signed by the Premier and by the Minister of Municipal Affairs recognizing their twenty years of service with the Lethbridge and area Fire Department.

Mr. Speaker, this particular fire department is a bit different, I think, from every other fire department in this Province. It is probably the only volunteer fire department that exists without any form of local government. Those people go out and raise money not only to buy equipment and to repair equipment, but they go out and raise money to pay the light bill, pay the phone bill, and operate all the functions that happen in their fire hall.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure every member here in this Legislature joins with me in saying congratulations, not only to those four individuals who got recognized for twenty years of service but to all firefighters in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life of Dorothy Johnson.

I had the privilege to attend yesterday's services at St. Bartholomew's Anglican Church in Harbour Breton. It was filled to capacity with family and friends from the Connaigre and Central Newfoundland region.

Mr. Speaker, Dorothy Johnson - Dot, as she was known to all of us - was born in Harbour Breton on February 9, 1962, to Ethel and the late Clayton Pierce. Dot grew up with two brothers, Randy and Robbie, and her sister Leanne. On November 4, 1983, she married the love of her life, Edward, and together they shared in the birth of their child, Gina, on October 16, 1984.

After achieving her high school diploma, Dot attended the Western Memorial School of Nursing. In 1983, she started her first job at the Harbour Breton Cottage Hospital as a staff nurse.

Being an ambitious person, she furthered her career by moving into a Nurse Manager position. With a number of years of experience and studies, Dot became the Senior Operating Officer of the Connaigre Peninsula Health Care Centre as well as Senior Operating Officer for Hugh Twomey Centre in Botwood and the North Haven Manor in Lewisporte. Eighteen months ago, she was seconded to the Primary Health Care Project for the Connaigre Peninsula Health Care System.

Mr. Speaker, her goal was to provide the people of the Connaigre Peninsula and surrounding areas with the best health care possible. While Dot enjoyed her life's work, a year into her battle with cancer caused her to stop and look at the important things in life, thus encouraging her to spend more quality time with the loves of her life, Edward and Gina. This was a time spent up at the cabin enjoying fun, fellowship and friends.

Reverend Buffet, in his Homily, referred to her as a servant and a leader. Although they appear to be contradictory, Mr. Speaker, they are not. Dorothy was a great person, and anyone who had the opportunity to know her had their lives enriched by her presence. May the work she has done speak for her. Her memories will be cherished forever.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to acknowledge the dedication of Kerri Barron of Southport. Kerri is a nineteen-year-old graduate of Southwest Arm Academy who was recently inspired by an advertisement she read promoting Canada World Youth, a national charitable organization founded in 1971 with the mission of expanding the role of youth in developing countries and promoting world peace. Kerri has spent the last six months as a member of CWY, and the last three-and-a-half of those months, Mr. Speaker, she spent in a tiny village in Indonesia.

Mr. Speaker, to participate in this program, Kerri went through a screening process and was one of ten Canadians selected to be a part of that team in early 2005. The Canadian team was involved in various projects, including opening a pre-school program and teaching English to Grade 3 and Grade 1 students.

Mr. Speaker, not only was this a tremendous learning experience for Kerri, but already at a young age she has made her mark and has had an influence on the young lives of children who she describes as not having very much, but probably the happiest people she has ever met.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me today in congratulating and also thanking Kerri for the contribution that she has made to improving the lives of people less fortunate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, during National Mining Week, to provide a breakdown of the improvements this government is making to the Province's Mineral Incentive Program with the nearly $1 million increase in funding announced in the provincial budget. At $2.5 million this year, this is the largest budget in this program's history.

As a result of the increased funding commitment, I am announcing today the addition of a new initiative to encourage more prospecting and development of dimension stone, building stone and industrial minerals.

Mr. Speaker, we are spending $250,000 toward providing non-repayable grants to cover 75 per cent of the cost of exploration and resource assessment on new or undeveloped natural stone prospects, up to a maximum of $50,000 per project. This initiative is designed to encourage companies or individuals to take new or inadequately assessed prospects to a more advanced stage.

The funding will allow for identification of alternate uses for existing or inactive stone quarries, and increase the known reserves of natural stone in this Province. It could, for example, result in identifying the potential to develop countertop stone from quarries originally used for monument stone or vice versa, which is a significant and growing market.

Mr. Speaker, we are also making improvements related to junior exploration and prospecting. We are modifying the $1.9 million junior exploration assistance component to include, for the first time, a $500,000 allocation specifically for grassroots exploration. This is a critical part of the exploration cycle and will include geophysical surveys conducted on the ground or from the air.

We are enhancing assistance for prospectors by offering an extra $2,000 in funding for helicopter or float plane support to explore remote properties not accessible by any other means. We are able to do this as a result of increasing the prospectors' assistance budget from $250,000 to $300,000.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the department is expanding - and I think significantly so - the two-week Prospectors Training Course into Labrador. It is currently offered in Stephenville and is open to all residents of the Province. The course will be offered in Happy Valley-Goose Bay this summer. We also have preliminary plans to offer this course in other parts and other regions of Labrador.

By delivering a Prospectors Training Course at different locations in Labrador, we hope to provide the maximum benefit and opportunity to all interested people in Labrador, which can only lead to a much higher potential for new mineral discoveries in Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, these initiatives represent a significant commitment by this government to promoting and encouraging mineral exploration in Newfoundland and Labrador, and it is a pleasure to announce these during National Mining Week.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate and thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement here today.

We certainly would have nothing but praise for this program given that it was, in fact, the creation of the former Liberal Administration in 1999.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Unfortunately, to see the minister's positive spin today, of course, in the 2004 Budget this program was chopped to its lowest level of funding ever - but it is good to see. Notwithstanding that, it is a very good program. Indeed, it is a very good program and it is good to see that government has finally recognized the value and the worth of this program and are putting the monies back into it that it ought to have. It certainly will encourage further investment and development in this sector, and hats off to not only the prospectors we already have, but to hopefully the many new prospectors we will get as a result of these training courses, and the junior exploration companies.

It is good to see, and it can only be good for parts of this Province, particularly rural Newfoundland, when we see things happening like they are in Labrador West with extensive expansions planned for that particular area. Certainly in rural Newfoundland, which is not a very promising sector right now of our economy, we need to see these types of development. It is good to see that we have a brighter light onshore than we have offshore, where apparently everything is stalled.

I wish everybody the best during Mining Week. Thank you.

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

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

I would like to acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, during Mining Week, the contribution that mining makes to our Province.

Any money that is used to support industries in mining or in dimension stone, Mr. Speaker - with just one development of a mine or dimension stone industry, the money that government invests into programs like this will come back many times over. It is a worthwhile investment, I say to the minister, and it is good to see that it is taking place.

I particularly note, Mr. Speaker, the $2,000 in funding for helicopters or float planes, because many times, particularly in Labrador, without a network road system, that is the only way to get access to areas where these finds may be able to take place.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. R. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. R. COLLINS: I am also happy, Mr. Speaker, to see that this course will be offered in different regions of Labrador. I know there are a number of prospectors in Labrador West today, and a number of other people have expressed interest to me in having this course made available, because the have an interest in pursuing this. I say to the minister, this program is very worthwhile and it is good to see it increased in funding.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise in this House today during National Nursing Week from May 8-14, 2006 to recognize the dedication of nurses across our Province who provide quality health care to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The theme of this year's National Nursing Week is Nursing: Promoting Healthy Choices for Healthy Living. In acute, long-term and community care settings, nurses are constant advocates for healthy living, patient and resident care and community well being. As we move forward with our Provincial Wellness Plan, nurses across our Province will be an integral part in reinforcing the importance of nutrition, active lifestyles and staying smoke free.

Mr. Speaker, nurses are vital to the health care system, playing key roles in the delivery of services and programs. Nursing administer treatment, advise on health and wellness and provide vaccinations. Nurses are on the front lines of patient care and also working behind the scenes in management and administration to ensure the health and safety of our population and the efficient operation of our health care system.

In Newfoundland and Labrador we have a strong workforce of over 8,000 nurses, including registered nurses, nurse practitioners and licensed practical nurses. We are proud to have the highest rate of full-time nurses employed in the country, with close to 100 per cent educated right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we are committed to providing health initiatives which will improve access to health care services while increasing employment opportunities for nursing professionals in all regions of the Province.

In Budget 2006, we invested $1.5 million to add thirty-nine new nursing positions over the next two years to strengthen the public health capacity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, through the expertise of the Province's Chief Nurse, we will continue to ensure that a nursing perspective is reflective in future health policy and planning initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in the House today to join me in paying tribute to nurses across the Province for their dedication and their contribution to their profession and the health of the people of this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, on this side of the House, as well, want to recognize the contribution of the men and women who work in the nursing profession in our Province. The work they do is highly commendable, and no doubt, they work long hours. They quite often have to give a lot of their time and their services to the people in this Province and they do so very willingly. They are, no doubt, the front line workers in our health care system and it is so important that the integrity of this profession be protected and upheld and that it be staffed adequately.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly feel that nurse practitioners out there in our Province today should be given a larger role in the health care system to play, that they should have more positions in more hospitals around this Province than we have today.

Also, I feel that mental health services and nurses need to be added to our system, I say to the minister, because these are the people who are dealing with the crisis that is facing our Province today. As we continue to see the disintegration of rural communities around this Province, more and more demands are being put on mental health nurses who are out there working in our fields. Many of them are on stress leave on a regular basis, and I know that from talking to them. So this would be a good week, I say to the minister, to increase that service -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS JONES: Just a minute to clue up, Mr. Speaker, if I may?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave? Has leave been granted?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the other area of nursing which I think needs to be looked at very clearly are positions that are being vacated in places like Hoyles-Escasoni, where in the last two-and-a-half years very few of those positions have been filled on a permanent basis but rather on a temporary basis. So, today, as we commend and recognize the work of people in the nursing profession in our Province, I think it is important to recognize that there are still a lot of gaps that need to be filled, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly happy to join in paying tribute to the dedication and contribution of the nurses in our Province, some 8,000 strong, who provide a level of care and service in this Province second to none.

Mr. Speaker, nursing week theme is Promoting Healthy Choices for Healthy Living. During this week I have to raise some concerns about the health of nurses themselves, Mr. Speaker. I am advised that they are increasingly being asked to do more call and more overtime, and that full-time jobs for those who retire are not being replaced. In fact, I was told by one nurse last week -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. HARRIS: - that of the 168 hours in a week, seven times twenty-four, she was either on call, on duty or working overtime for 135 of those hours.

Mr. Speaker, we do not want to slip back into a situation where we were a few years ago, where we had difficulty retaining nurses because the wages being paid in other provinces are greater and that nurses who are graduating from our nursing schools only have access to casual work. So, I hope that some changes are made by government as to how nurses are treated in this Province by the Ministry of Health.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My first question is to the Minister of Justice. I ask the minister if he has asked for or received a legal opinion on whether or not the provincial government, under the FPI Act, has the authority to tell FPI where to process its quotas? If so, are you prepared to release those opinions?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: The Province from time to time seeks legal advice from the Department of Justice, or externally for that matter, on FPI and other matters. These are for the advice of government and for the advice of ministers to help us in our decision making process.

In terms of FPI and where they can process fish or where they can land fish, it is like I said to the hon. gentleman yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that these are matters that rest with the Government of Canada. When fish is landed in the Province, then it becomes the responsibility and the jurisdiction of the Province. It is on that basis that we attach conditions to licences, and we enforce them as best we can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is obvious that he has not asked for and he has not received a legal opinion.

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Premier accused me yesterday of going around saying that the sky was falling. Well, I say to the Deputy Premier, the sky fell on Harbour Breton eighteen months ago and it fell on the town of Fortune thirteen months ago, and what have we heard from this government? Nothing only rants and raves and rhetorics.

We heard, since that time, a lot about the threats that government has made about changing the FPI Act to protect the workers. We have heard about charges being laid against FPI. We have heard about the government buying quotas for, not only Harbour Breton but for Fortune as well. We have heard about Bill Barry going into Harbour Breton and Cooke's Aquaculture going into Fortune. We have heard about Bill Barry buying FPI, but what have we seen from this government, Mr. Speaker? Absolutely nothing! What we have seen is a mass exodus of people from those communities.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: When are we going to see some action, or are you waiting until there is no one left in these communities and the lights are turned out?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, it is like I said to the hon. gentleman, I believe it was yesterday, he can get on with any rant that he wants, he can paint all the negative pictures that he likes, but the fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that this government is working diligently to try to find solutions for communities in this Province - whether it is Harbour Breton, whether it is Fortune, whether it happens to be any other community in the Province, Stephenville or wherever - to try to make life better for the people who are remaining in those communities.

We are not deliberately, Mr. Speaker, forcing people into vehicles and go out of this Province. What a foolish, silly proposition that the Leader of the Opposition puts forth. Mr. Speaker, no wonder he has no credibility, no wonder nobody in the Province listens to a word he is saying because most of it is just nonsense. On the other hand, this government is doing the best it can under difficult circumstances to help people all over rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Personal attacks again. I ask again: What have you done? You have done absolutely nothing to help the people in those affected communities.

When you talk about Stephenville, all I have heard you are about to do is set up some kind of a manpower centre so that the people in Alberta do not have to come here anymore to take our people, they will be sent from a centre that you are about to establish in Stephenville.

Mr. Speaker, here is something that the minister can do something about. He says he cannot do anything else about other things in the fishery. As we speak, Gulf shrimp is continuing to be trucked off the Northern Peninsula, against government policy, while plants in that region remain closed.

I ask the minister: Is he going to allow this to continue until all the Gulf shrimp has been harvested and processed elsewhere in the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, if an aquaculture equity investment program is doing nothing, then this government is doing nothing. If a loan guarantee program to attract investors into the aquaculture market in this Province - in rural Newfoundland, not Water Street - is doing nothing, then we stand accused of doing nothing, but the facts speak for themselves.

The Leader of the Opposition is not going to proclaim the good news, but we will proclaim the good news, every opportunity we get, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador know the difference. That is why this government is more popular today than it was two-and-a-half years ago.

Now, in terms of 4R shrimp, Mr. Speaker, let me repeat what I have said to the hon. gentleman before. I am taking a very cautious approach to this matter, and here is why. As we speak today, every plant that is operating on the Northern Peninsula is operating at capacity. If I do something that interferes with that, I will have harvesters on my back before the day is over. So, we have to have a balance.

I understand that Black Duck Cove is opening next week. I understand, as well, that Daley's are gearing up in Anchor Point. If those two things happen, the problem will resolve itself over the course of time. If it does not then I am prepared to act, but I am prepared to be cautious as well, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation. In the last exchanges, the preambles have meant that members have exceeded their allotted times. This was true for both the questioner and for the minister replying. I would ask members if they could keep their questions and their answers within sixty seconds.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister and the Deputy Premier, if he can find good news in the fishery this year, he should tell the convoys that have left Harbour Breton and those that are leaving every other fishing community in the Province today.

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to union officials who are concerned that the price of shrimp may go down in June, as has happened in the past, and that could mean that nobody will be harvesting or processing shrimp by the end of June. That, coupled with the fact that crab quotas will have already been harvested and processed, could mean the complete shutdown of our shellfish fishery; and that is by the middle of June, I say to the minister.

Does the minister have any concerns about the ramifications of this, and has he talked to anybody about an action plan to deal with those in our fishing industry who are going to be devastated by those events?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I have said consistently, and this government have said consistently, we will put a framework in place to settle price. At the end of the day we cannot force harvesters to harvest for that price or processors to buy for that price. That is exactly what is happening out there now.

If, Mr. Speaker, things get as bad as the hon. gentleman would hope they get - because I can almost feel the tinge of joy in his voice as he talks about those devastating things. You can almost detect it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: He hopes it happens, Mr. Speaker. He hopes the roof falls, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to try to (inaudible) that kind of response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair asks the minister if he is finished his reply?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I say that was one pathetic response, to actually suggest that I would want to see a collapse in the fishery and have thousands of families in this Province have to leave to find work elsewhere. That is not a responsible remark made by a Deputy Premier.

Mr. Speaker, some shrimp plants in this Province have not opened yet and there is speculation that some crab plants may close as early as this Friday. I ask the minister: Have you had any discussions with any processors as to why this is happening and what their plans are for 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, I believe it was last Friday, I think it was last -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I believe it was last Friday - it was last Friday - that I had representatives of both processors associations and the union in the boardroom at the Department of Fisheries to talk a whole range of things, including: marketing, what is happening with shrimp, what is happening with crab, what can the government do to be proactive and assist.

Mr. Speaker, we are at it every single day and we will continue to be at it and help in any way we can to assist the industry that, no question, is going through a very difficult time. Everybody understands that. The marketplace is not good, everybody understands that, but we are working together, as associations and government and union, to try to address those issues, Mr. Speaker, as best we can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to see that the minister has finally admitted that he is talking to someone. We are more concerned about what actions you are going to have.

Mr. Speaker, my final question to the minister: Would the minister like to tell us today if he has any idea as to when the investigation into FPI will be complete and if FPI will be charged? Not if - when FPI will be charged?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, my answer to the hon. gentleman is the same as it has been on any other occasion when he has raised that particular issue. The process is continuing. When the process is completed, then the matter will be resolved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the House, that just one count involved 7,000 pieces of paper, and you are over there asking me when the process is going to be complete. It will be completed when it is completed and the matter will be resolved when it is completed. I have no intention of interfering in that process. As a matter of fact, if I did, the first one on my back would be the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for saying I had my final question. This will be my final question, Mr. Speaker.

The minister stood in the back of a truck on O'Leary Avenue six weeks ago and said that FPI broke the law, they broke the law, they broke the law; they are going to be charged, they are going to be charged, they are going to be charged. Why does it take 6,000 pieces of paper to determine when you are going to do it?

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

MR. RIDEOUT: The hon. gentleman who gets on and talks about rants and raves and tears and sorrows and misery and all that kind of stuff, would know, Mr. Speaker, if he had a clue at all, that it is called due process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure if the minster said due process or June process, but I think it will probably take until June.

It is clear to everyone that this government's handling of fishery issues has been disastrous, but that is only part of the story in terms of this government's inability to live up to the commitments they made during the last election regarding rural revitalization. The government's record on rural areas in this Province since the closure of the Stephenville mill, the closure of the fish plant in Harbour Breton, the closure of the fish plant in Fortune. The whole fishery is in a crisis. Raised ferry rates; closed down government services of rural Newfoundland; increased fees for small businesses, and I could go on, Mr. Speaker. Last night on the news we heard of another job fare where companies from Alberta were recruiting skilled workers from this Province.

I ask the Deputy Premier, in the Premier's absence: How many people have left this Province since this government came to power with their promise to help revitalize the rural economy, and what does he intend to do about this exodus?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to answer some of the notions put forward by the member with respect to her preamble.

With respect to Stephenville, government reached an agreement with Abitibi for the Abitibi arrangement. That could not happen after for reasons outside of government.

Secondly, if you want to look at this record in terms of rural revitalization, look at the Budget this year. We are about to create 4,500 new jobs in rural Newfoundland and Labrador because of an infrastructure fund put in place over four or five years.

Now, to answer her question directly: How many people have left since we became government? About one-twentieth, compared to the numbers that left when they were the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, in the Premier's message at the front of the Blue Book for the last election he said, "I want to address the real issues that are important to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Issues such as job creation, the economy, outmigration, health care, education, the fishery and rural development." Further down the message the Premier states, "We will make significant achievements in our first mandate..."

I ask the Premier or the Deputy Premier, now in the third year of his mandate: Does he think he has made significant achievements in terms of the issues of out-migration, the fishery and rural development, or is he ready to admit what everyone else in this Province knows, that this government has been a total failure on these issues?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is important to put things into perspective that is real and that is based upon facts, not based upon a political assumption and assertion that serves the interest of the Opposition only.

Let's speak to the facts. From 1996 to 2000, when that member was the minister responsible for the development and revitalization of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, 59,000 people left Newfoundland and Labrador. Now here is what we are ready to admit to, what the majority of the population already know, that there are more people working in Newfoundland and Labrador today, and have been for the last two to two-and-a-half years, than anytime in our history. That confirms the place where we are in the polls compared to where they are.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I know the House Leader is not the Deputy Premier, but that is fine. I do not mind him taking the questions, but I think it is time that the Government House Leader started to live in the present and not the past and talk about their record.

Another much touted part of the Premier's election platform was the Rural Secretariat. The platform stated: A Secretariat will be dedicated to promoting the well-being of rural Newfoundland and Labrador through a comprehensive approach aimed at integrating economic social and cultural aspects of rural and regional development.

I ask the Premier or the Deputy Premier, now in the third year of his mandate: With a Rural Secretariat that spent close to $2 million last year and held retreats at Humber Valley Resort and Terra Nova Golf Resort, can he tell us what the Rural Secretariat has achieved?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, if the question was coming -

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, if you want to ask me a question I will answer it, but your colleague has asked me a question. I would like to answer hers first and then we will get to you right after that, I say to the member.

If, Mr. Speaker, the question was coming from anybody else it would almost be credible, and here is why. To answer her question directly, whether she likes it or not, whether the members like it or not, there are more people working in Newfoundland and Labrador today, and in the last two-and-a-half years than there have been in our history.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A question has been asked and the Government House Leader is in the process of replying. I ask members for their co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the Government House Leader to complete his answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will ask you to ask the Member for Grand Bank, would she like an answer to her question or not?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier knows he made some very strong commitments to the people of this Province in the last election, and since then as well. He should also know that his current inaction is resulting in the destruction of rural areas of this Province and having a devastating impact on the lives of thousands of people.

I ask the Premier, or the Deputy Premier, or the Government House Leader, I do not care which one stands up: When is he going to admit that his current approach to rural development is a failure and start to listen to people who are begging him to look outside the overpass and deal with a crisis situation in rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Two quick points, Mr. Speaker. Let's start with St. Anthony. We have just invested in a Telemedicine centre in St. Anthony. Let's talk about the Member for Bellevue's district, where we put $1 million in play to keep 250 people in place.

More importantly, Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the member who asked the question and what her view was of rural Newfoundland and Labrador revitalizing it. You can look to places like Gander, you can look to places like Mount Pearl, you can look to places like Grand Falls, but if you are looking at -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TAYLOR: Don't want to hear it, don't want to hear the truth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Government House Leader, and asks him to complete his answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure, but before the next Question Period I am going to ask the catering plan downstairs to provide lunch for the members of the Opposition, because they want to ask a question but they don't want to hear the answer.

The member talked about investing in central regions of the Province. Here is what you said: But in terms of the people in smaller communities we don't have the infrastructure and, more importantly, they don't have the skills. That is not, Mr. Speaker, the philosophy of this government, but was hers when she was in charge of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: What was the significance of that lunch thing?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, a point of clarification.

Mr. Speaker, in my question to the minister on Monday regarding the environmental report on the Stephenville flood, the minister said, and I quote: The report has been referred to as an environmental study done for the Town of Stephenville. The mayor has said that the report was the department's. The Citizen's Group has asked, through the Freedom of Information, for the report.

Can the minister, in consultation with the town, clear up the misunderstanding and have the report passed on to those residents?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a good question. I think the confusion arises whereby the report was done for the Town of Stephenville but was paid for by the government. I will converse with the Mayor of the Town of Stephenville. As a matter of fact, I am having people review the report as we speak, and I really don't see any major problem with releasing it in the not too distant future.

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

MR. REID: When are you going to answer the question?

MR. LANGDON: Good question.

Another question to the minister.

There has been an engineering study commissioned by the department related to the flood as well, as I understand, and the affected residents are requesting a copy of the engineering report or interim report that has been prepared.

I ask the minister, if he will release a copy of this report to the residents, so they can have all the information that is available as they are trying to put their lives back together.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

What was asked of the engineers, Mr. Speaker, was that they would determine a flood control zone. They determined a boundary based on the information provided to them by surveyors who were in the field the day after the flood. That boundary has been determined. There is some concern in the area with people who are outside the flood control area that the boundary is not accurate. I have no fears that the boundary is accurate, Mr. Speaker. There have been talks that they now would want to have another engineer do a further study. They are talking about having that done themselves. Mr. Speaker, where does it stop? If this engineer goes out and changes the boundary by three, four or five feet, do we go then and get another engineer to go out and change that boundary?

The engineers who did the study, who did the report, Mr. Speaker, are professional consulting engineers. They have done work for the Town of Stephenville in the past. They have done work for other municipalities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. They are members of the Association of Professional Engineers of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and I have no problem with the boundary as it now stands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: I think the minister might have misunderstood my question. The thing is, the people were wondering if they could have a copy of the engineering report, not that they want another one done, but the minister can answer that in the next question.

Mr. Speaker, before the environmental study or the engineering study has been released to residents and they have had a chance to review the information, residents are concerned that the town may move forward and do water and sewer work.

I ask the minister: Will he show some compassion for these residents who have had to endure a lot over the past year - he knows that - and will he put on hold any infrastructure work until the residents have the reports and have had time to review the information in them?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I will first say that this government has shown great compassion for the people of Stephenville who are victims of the flood in Stephenville. Mr. Speaker, we are going way beyond, way beyond, anything that has been done in the past for any flood victims, as the hon. member knows. We are relocating 103 families within the flood control zone, Mr. Speaker. The twenty-three families that are impacted outside the flood control zone, we are compensating those individuals for any damage that was done because of the damage to the infrastructure. We have told them that we would strip the houses to the studs, to the concrete, there would be environmental assessments done, there would be air quality control done for those individuals who are asked to go back into their homes, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the boundary, the boundary itself, the boundary that was determined by the engineers was not, as such, an engineering study done. They were asked to determine the flood control zone. They went out in the field; they provided the information to the department. The flood control zone was determined by professional engineers, Mr. Speaker, and I do not know what more we can do at this point and time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, on a final supplementary.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question was, I think, in number two, would the minister release the report? In number three it was to ask the town to put it on hold until all of the information had been received.

Number four, Mr. Speaker, the last question. It has been suggested by some of the residents that the land has actually shifted under their properties. If the government refuses to move these people, and leaves their homes in the present location, there may be problems later on because of the resulting instability. This could result in major structural damages occurring.

I ask the minister: Will government guarantee that they will cover the cost of any such future problems?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, the victims outside the flood control zone had damage based on sewer backup or failure of the pipes that are in the ground. The federal program does not cover that type of damage. We have said that the government will come up with an extra $8 million to deal with those individuals outside the flood control zone.

As I said before, which is very significant - it is something that has never happened in the past in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador - those people outside the flood control zone will have their homes repaired to the pre-flood conditions. As a matter of fact, some of them probably will be better than the pre-flood conditions. I also stated that if the cost to repair those homes is equal to or greater than the cost to relocate, we will relocate.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what else they can ask for.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Deputy Premier.

On March 29, in this House, the minister stated that his government had the authority and the determination -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - to use legislation to force FPI to cross-subsidize its operations in Newfoundland and Labrador by using its international marketing assets.

Mr. Speaker, where is the resolve of the government now, when FPI has shut down Fortune and Harbour Breton before and is now trying to strip the contracts of its workers through concession bargaining or, as one columnist over the weekend said, engaged in the piracy and plunder of rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his question.

Mr. Speaker, the resolve of this government is just as, just as -

AN HON. MEMBER: Strong.

MR. RIDEOUT: - strong today - thank you - as it ever was. We have given serious consideration to a number of potential amendments to the FPI Act. If and when -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If and when, as a government, we decide that those amendments are necessary, then we will bring them before the House; but, certainly, Mr. Speaker, we have given a lot of consideration to a number of amendments that could be used to strengthen -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think a lot of people are concerned it might be too late for the people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries are on the record numerous times as saying that all options were open, that everything was on the table. Mr. Speaker, when did they reject the one option that might give the solution to the problem, acquire all the quota that FPI has, ensure that there will be cross subsidization and ensure there is management in place that would follow the spirit and intent of the FPI Act? When did the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador reject the option of acquiring FPI for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the government has, and still has, any and all options open to it regarding FPI. We would prefer -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair asks members for their co-operation. A question has been asked by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and the minister is giving a reply. I ask all members for their co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I was about to try to say to my colleague from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the government would prefer not to purchase FPI. That would be our preferred position. What in God's name - why would you want to buy and try to manage and operate FPI? We would prefer not to do that. Have we said categorically that we would not do that if we had to, Mr. Speaker? No, we have not. So, in terms of options, all options are open to us. At some point we are going to have to make some decisions, but that is not today.

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.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the 2004-2005 Annual Report for the Women's Policy Office, and the 2004-2005 Annual Report for the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Students' Financial Assistance Act. (Bill 29)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I want to give notice, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that on the next day the House meets, which I believe is Monday, the House not close at 5:30 p.m. and give further notice in accordance with Standing Order 11 that the House not close at 10:00 p.m.

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: Mr. Speaker, I stand again today on a petition concerning the dump site in Wild Cove. Today I present the petition on behalf of residents from the Town of Meadows. It is concerning the dump site in Meadows.

Mr. Speaker, I must clarify something, because the minister mentioned two or three weeks ago to me that he would meet with the residents. I know the Minister of Municipal Affairs is in the process of arranging the meeting. I thank the minister for that. I am sure the Minister of Environment and Conservation will be arranging a meeting with the mayors on the North Shore also, in the very near future. I thank the minister for that also, because a lot of the times, Mr. Speaker, when there is a decision going to be made and when you have a group of individuals, especially in this case, mayors and residents in the town who are unaware of any sequence of events or happenings with an incident, you hear so many rumours, you hear so many other issues that come into play.

The City of Corner Brook has publicly stated that their intent is to extend the life of this dump site. This is a major concern for the residents on the North Shore. This is a major concern for the residents travelling the North Shore for tourism, and for safety on the roads going up on the North Shore highway. So, these issues have to be addressed. These concerns must be dealt with in a proper and upfront manner with all the residents.

Again, I must reiterate, the major concern is that this dump site be closed down and follow the report of having a regional disposable site. This is the major focus of the residents on the North Shore. I will be presenting another petition everyday next week. We are getting over 1,000 names now for the North Shore, the Bay of Islands, for presenting the petitions.

I thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs for arranging the meeting. I have not heard back yet from the Minister of Environment and Conservation, but I am sure he will arrange the meeting. I can assure the mayors that the meeting will be a productive meeting and the concerns will be put forth and, hopefully, all of us together can find a suitable solution to this.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am on my feet again today on behalf of the residents and the people of the Buchans area. It has become quite apparent that this government does not want me to petition government on this very important matter. I have been intercepted by two Ministers of the Crown since I have been given this petition day after day.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs, he was one of the people who decided to study the petition form to see if it was in order and ran out after I gave it one day to get a copy so he could examine it. Yesterday, the Government House Leader did the same. All of that has been to no avail because I had a proper petition. Not only that, they are more concerned about a form being right or a form being wrong that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member of the requirements of section 92 of the Standing Orders. I will read the Standing Order, "Every Member offering a petition to the House shall confine himself or herself to the statement of the parties from whom it comes, the number of signatures attached to it and the material allegations it contains."

I would ask the member if she could keep her petition relevant to the prayer of the petition, not to what happened in previous days.

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

I am pleased today, again, to stand on behalf of the residents of Buchans. I have seven pages of names from the residents of Buchans. What that says is that in previous days of me presenting this petition -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS THISTLE: It is clear they do not want to listen to it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking members to my left, in particular, for their co-operation. The hon. the member is presenting a petition and the Chair would like to hear what the member has to say.

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

It is quite obvious that if the members opposite had spent time convincing their Cabinet colleagues to put funding in the Budget for the Buchans Highway, I would not be on my feet today if they paid more attention to that than if the form was right or wrong. The form has been right all the time.

Mr. Speaker, when I look at the article that was in The Advertiser, the Minister of Transportation and Works said: Repairs to the Buchans Highway is not a top priority. It is not a top priority by this government. He said so, and I have it here in the paper if anyone wants to look at it. Why isn't it a top priority? We have two industries in the Buchans area.

I have a letter here, an e-mail, from a nurse afraid to travel over the Buchans Highway for fear that anyone in the ambulance may not get to the hospital in Grand Falls-Windsor on time; having to slow down for the bumps in the highway; being afraid that intravenous needles will come out of a patient's arm; and afraid that they won't get to the hospital in Grand Falls-Windsor in time in an emergency situation. That is not a top priority of this government, so says the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired. I have given the member thirty seconds for the interruptions that I made.

MS THISTLE: Another thirty seconds?

MR. SPEAKER: I have already give you an extra thirty seconds.

MS THISTLE: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thirty seconds.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

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

The impression I want to leave with this government today - I think they should have it by now - is that this is an important request, that the upgrades to the Buchans Highway be done, for the economy, for safety and for health reasons. What else can you say? It needs to be done, please listen, please do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: And you are going to be back again.

MS THISTLE: And I will be back again tomorrow.

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people in the District of Grand Bank, particularly the people who worked at the fish plant in Fortune who are now finding themselves unemployed, many of them not knowing where to turn in the sense of having to provide for their families, many who have to leave the Burin Peninsula and move to Alberta, move to Northern BC, move to Ontario, move to P.E.I., or wherever there are jobs available. They are doing so reluctantly because that is not what they want to have to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: They have families on the Burin Peninsula -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. Sorry!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. member. I ask all members for their co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank District.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a serious issue and I really appreciate that you brought some attention to it, so that we can, in fact, hear what is going on here.

This petition that I am presenting on behalf of hundreds of people on the Burin Peninsula really does need the attention of the House. Again, I want to speak on their behalf, because this petition is all about the fact that the fish plant in Fortune has closed. People don't know what the future holds for them. They really don't know what to expect in terms of Cooke Aquaculture.

What they are asking in this petition is that the government recognize and respect the importance of the fishing industry to the area, and take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the quota traditionally processed by Fishery Products International for the area remains within the region for the benefit of the people and the communities. That is what we keep asking in this House of Assembly, and I will continue to ask it on a daily basis, Mr. Speaker, until we get some sense from the government that they are prepared to do that.

I know that whenever I bring this up and I suggest that with the existing FPI Act that is possible and I am being told that is not the case, then I beg to differ with the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture; because, if you have an act that has control over the company and this piece of legislation does, in fact, give the government authority, then, in fact, you have control over the assets, and the quota happens to be an asset of FPI at this point in time. Does it have to remain an asset of FPI? I would think not, Mr. Speaker, given that quotas are assigned by the federal government and they are assigned, I understand, on an annual basis, so there is no reason why FPI should continue to have the quota that is traditionally processed in Fortune.

So, again, I am calling on the government to acknowledge this, to recognize this, to speak with Minister Hearn, the federal Minister of Fisheries, to try and make some sense out of this whole issue and make sure that the quota that is traditionally processed in Fortune continues to be processed in Fortune.

I have heard other people very knowledgeable in the fishing industry, people like Mr. Gus Etchegary, speak to this issue, speak to the fact that quotas can be assigned to communities, that you do not have to go out buying quotas. Who wants to go ahead and buy a quota from FPI, for heaven's sake, when that very company are the ones destroying communities.

I would suggest that what the government needs to do here is take matters into their own hands and recognize that this is a serious issue here, in particular on the Burin Peninsula, and we know the same thing on the Connaigre Peninsula, and make sure that the quotas that are traditionally processed -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the leave.

- both on the Burin Peninsula and the Connaigre Peninsula, that those quotas that are traditionally processed in those communities at the plants continue to be processed there.

It is on behalf of the people, in fact, in my district, in the District of Grand Bank, that I raise this petition. They have signed this, hundreds of them have signed this, from communities throughout my district; because, of course, it is not just Fortune that is impacted but many of the communities, whether it is Lord's Cove, Lamaline, Grand Beach, Grand Bank, Point au Gaul, Point May, they are all impacted by what has happened at the fish plant in Fortune. Of course, it is not just people who worked in the plant but the fishermen themselves who traditionally sold their product to Fishery Products International and the business that are now feeling the crunch because, of course, people do not have the money to spend that they traditionally had to spend because they were employed.

So, again, I am calling on the government to recognize the seriousness of the situation and to ensure, take whatever action is necessary to ensure, that the quota traditionally processed at the fish plant in Fortune continues to be processed at the fish plant in Fortune.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to make a petition on behalf of the citizens of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou and Diamond Cove. I thought to do it yesterday but we got bogged down in some procedural wrangling and I did not get an opportunity.

In any event, this is the eighth or maybe ninth time I have had to bring this to the attention of the House of Assembly. The petitions just keep coming in from that particular area. Of course, it concerns the closure, or possible closure, of the elementary school in Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou. There is going to be a meeting on May 18 in that area. The Western School Board has given notice to the particular residents of that area that it may be considering making a motion to close St. Michael's. That school currently has twenty-one students in it. It is a K-6 school, and if it is closed, of course, that means these students will have to be bused up the road to the nearest school, which is Grandy's River.

Now, there are all kinds of issues here, including: Does Grandy's River have the physical capacity to contain them? What are the proprieties of sending young kids like this over that distance, particularly during the winter months and particularly during hazardous travelling conditions over treacherous roads? There is also a question of: Is it necessary at all? Because, if the school has remained opened for some years based upon an enrollment that is there, and that enrollment is going to be out there in the foreseeable future, because we have no statistical information to indicate that the enrollment is going to decline, is it even necessary to consider it?

With regard to the physical condition of the building, if that were the case, we have no indication that it is - it is certainly not the physical structure of the school that would require the closure.

So, we are looking forward to a very open and informative meeting next Thursday night. I have invited the Minister of Education who, no doubt, lives in the district and represents the district next door and, being new to the portfolio of Education, would probably find it very informative and educational herself to take part in one of these community board operations to see how they work and how they impact the people. That invitation, as I say, has been extended to the minister and we look forward to her and her officials, hopefully, showing up next Thursday evening in Rose Blanche to show the interest that she has, no doubt, in being aware of these types of problems and how they impact people in rural Newfoundland.

I have requested some information from Dr. Elliott. I have not received it to date, particularly any studies and assessments of the physical condition of the building. He sent me some stuff about what he has in terms of when the building was built, and those kinds of things, which we already had, but there is a whole pile of information we would like to get from him so we can have an open, completely informed discussion. The people of that area are particularly well-informed about the facts they do have possession of, and the reasons why this school should not be closed, and they will be presenting those arguments in a very logical, rational fashion to Dr. Elliott. We feel certain that, once the information is relayed to him, and the concerns are relayed to him, and the full, detailed comprehensive hearing is heard of all the circumstances, that this board will find it simply unreasonable and unnecessary to proceed with this matter any further.

Thank you very much for the indulgence, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of residents of the community of English Harbour East and Fortune Bay, in the community of English Harbour East and Fortune Bay, and the Minister of Health may not know where that is located.

These residents are very, very concerned about the closure of the school in English Harbour East. The school board has already announced that it is going to close the school. St. George's School in English Harbour East is a K-6 school. What the board is proposing is that they will be relocated to Terrenceville. It is a forty-five to fifty minute ride on bus over some of the most treacherous conditions that exist in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Most people are well aware that the Burin Peninsula is unique in terms of weather conditions, unique in terms of its geography and its terrain. Right now, we have the high school students, seven to eleven. This community has given a lot over the years in terms of contributing to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and they are requesting that the kindergarten to six students stay within the community. We are talking about kindergarten students going to a school - the school board has promised, or said, that they will build a new school in Terrenceville. They have not even submitted the plan to the Department of Education for a new school yet, let alone putting a new school there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: Right now, there is no cafeteria existing in the school in Terrenceville. All that is being served in the cafeteria by the staff of the school are hamburgers, processed meat and sandwiches. Kids have to use a microwave to heat up their food. We are going to be asking four-year-olds and five-year-olds to go to a school that is not equipped.

What the people of English Harbour East, and also in the community of Grand Le Pierre - which I have submitted a petition - are asking is that the school board hold off on this decision and wait.

As a matter of fact, the enrollment in the English Harbour East school will increase in the next couple of years, and not decrease. The English Harbour East school, there is no doubt about it, is a community school. It has community spirit within the school, and everybody in the community supports the school. It is a beautiful building. Not only does a building make a great school, but the spirit within the community makes a school, and the people of English Harbour East have been very committed to the school.

Mr. Speaker, the people on the Burin Peninsula right now, as the Member for Grand Bank has mentioned, are going through very trying times.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. BARRETT: Right now, the least they want to have to consider is the fact that they are going to lose their schools. The community of English Harbour East over the years has been very, very heavily involved in the fishing industry. Most of the skippers and the mates and engineers who have worked on the offshore vessels over the years have come out of the community of English Harbour East and are very talented, and all of the kids who have come out of the school go on and have great careers in the various industries in Newfoundland and Labrador and across the mainland. What this community is asking now is that the school board continue to operate this school.

In 1999, the previous government that I was a part of designated this school as a necessarily existent school, and for very good reasons. The same reasons exist now. The word from the school board today - I have a letter, a communication, from Mr. Lambe, and this is directed to the Minister of Education from the school board. The school board is saying to the Department of Education: If you continue on with the necessarily existent designation of this school, the school board will keep it open.

So, it is right on the minister's desk now. All she has to say is yes or not and this school will remain open. I am calling on the Minister of Education to continue on with the designation of this school as necessarily existent, and the people of English Harbour East and the people of Grand Le Pierre will continue having their schools within their community, at least until the new school is built in Terrenceville or wherever the new school is going to be built.

Mr. Speaker, I am calling on the Minister of Education and the government today to listen to the people in this community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present this petition on behalf of the unsigned residents of Victoria, for the most part. There are several hundred names here, and the spirit of the petition, the body, reads:

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

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

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

WHEREUPON the undesigned, 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, as I have said on numerous occasions in the past number of weeks, Route 70 is a very important section of highway that serves the Conception Bay North area. It is the main link between Old Perlican, Bay de Verde, Northern Bay, Western Bay, up through to Kingston along by Perry's Cove and through Salmon Cove and Victoria. This particular section of road from Victoria to Salmon Cove is almost in an impassable state.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of school buses using this every day, students from Western Bay commuting to Carbonear, being jostled to pieces on a school bus. Ambulances connecting the lower part of the North Shore area to the Carbonear area and on to the Health Sciences Centre and other facilities here in St. John's are using this road, and they find it very uncomfortable. I hear constant complaints from people who are taking different means of transportation going over this highway, complaining about how their loved ones are being treated in an ambulance or in a private vehicle trying to get to a health care facility.

Mr. Speaker, another side of this - and what is happening here, and why this road is so important - is the tremendous expense that is being incurred by the people who live in the area, the cost of repairs to their vehicles. A person showed me a rim the other day; $250 it cost to replace a rim on her car, where she hit a hole. Struts - any of us who have had any experience in having their vehicles repaired can attest to the extreme cost that is involved. Mr. Speaker, I think it is only fair that this government give some consideration to repairing this road in a timely manner.

Another particular annoyance is the continued noise all night long; people trying to sleep in their homes, and the tractor trailers and the other transportation going back and forth all night long hitting these ruts and holes, causing undue stress upon the people who are living in these homes. I have heard myself, first-hand -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. SWEENEY: Just to conclude?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I have more to say on this and, as the time progresses over this session, I will.

The Minister of Finance need not find this funny, because it is not funny to the 200-plus people - the 300 people - on this petition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, Motion 2, first reading of a bill, An Act To Establish The Council On Higher Education. (Bill 21)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Education shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Establish The Council On Higher Education. (Bill 21)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Education shall have leave to introduce Bill 21?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a bill, "An Act To Establish The Council On Higher Education," carried. (Bill 21)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 21 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 21 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 Establish The Council On Higher Education. (Bill 21)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 21 has now been read a first time. When shall Bill 21 be read a second time?

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

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 21 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 3, first reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act No. 2. (Bill 24)

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 No. 2. (Bill 24)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act No. 2," carried. (Bill 24)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 24 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 24 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 No. 2. (Bill 24)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 24, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act No. 2 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 24 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 Human Rights Code. (Bill 25)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code. (Bill 25)

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code," carried. (Bill 25)

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 25 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 Human Rights Code. (Bill 25)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 25, An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code has now been read a first time. When shall Bill 25 be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 25 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.

Order 5, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Child, Youth and Family Services Act. (Bill 18)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Child, Youth and Family Services Act be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Child, Youth and Family Services Act." (Bill 18)

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

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

This bill would allow for the appointment of an additional Director of Child, Youth and Family Services in the Labrador part of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, a community capacity building is a key element of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and the provisions of the Director of Child, Youth and Family Services specific to Innu communities of Sheshatshiu and Natuashish confirms government's commitments to assisting communities to support the safety, health and well-being of their children and youth.

The creation of this position, Mr. Speaker, to the Innu will promote the opportunity for community capacity building with families and community leaders by building on strengths and supporting these communities in their efforts to respond to the needs of their children, youth and families. Through the hiring of this position, as well, Mr. Speaker, government wishes to support the Innu communities in their efforts to collaborate on finding solutions for those communities.

I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to be introducing and speaking on this bill today.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few comments with respect to Bill 18.

My colleague, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, is intending to have a few words on this bill, but in the meantime, in advance of her comments, I would just like to say that there are some explanatory pieces, I guess, that we would feel more comfortable with if the minister could take it upon himself - we certainly understand the reasoning for wanting to have an additional director in the sense of some sensitivities regarding the Labrador area in particular. I am wondering if the minister could explain what resources we currently have in the Labrador area and why it is necessary to have another director appointed? Has there been any decision making taken place yet with regards to where this director would work out of? What geographic area in Labrador would that director be responsible for? Is there a particular cultural area that the new director would be responsible for? Surely, I would think, some thought has, in fact, gone into that piece.

I notice it says in here that - with the approval of the minister, of course. This is getting the legislative authority to appoint such a director, of course, an additional Director of Child, Youth and Family Services and, where an additional director is appointed, each director shall exercise the powers and perform the duties given to a director under this act. Of course, the act we are talking about is the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

I am wondering if the minister might give us some further explanations so people know, of course, that there is, indeed, a director there already? How are the two directors going to coexist in terms of geographic and in terms of responsibilities?

I am sure the minister will get an opportunity, if he would before closing debate - after we have had an opportunity to hear from the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair on this bill - to give us some comments in that regard.

MR. SPEAKER: Further debate on second reading?

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to have a few words as it relates to Bill 18. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that this amendment to the legislation would be to appoint an additional Director of Child, Youth and Family Services for the Labrador region. I guess just a couple of questions.

First of all, would the position be based in Labrador and would it come under the Labrador-Grenfell Health Authority or would it be under the Child Advocate offices, is what I was wondering? I understand, from the minister nodding, that it is under the Labrador-Grenfell Health Authority.

Mr. Speaker, no doubt, government has obviously assessed a need in the Labrador region. I am sure that this has been put forward and supported by the health corporation there to have a director position added. I understand that this will be an addition, minister, to the other directors of Child, Youth and Family Services that are present in the Labrador region. This would be an additional position, in addition to the other director positions that are already there.

It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that this is a region of our Province, unfortunately, that has put a tremendous amount of demands on the child welfare system. I do not think that is any surprise to anyone who has worked, lived in that region, and is familiar with the amount of cases that are often handled through that particular corporation.

Mr. Speaker, I think we only have to go back a few months to find out how really strained the resources are in the Labrador region as it relates to Child, Youth and Family Services. We quite often hear of instances where workers are having to fly in the middle of the night to communities all over Labrador to deal with emergencies, to deal with critical issues as it relates to children and youth and families in our system.

I know, firsthand, many of the people who work in this particular field, I know the kind of work that they do, and I know, Mr. Speaker, that it isn't easy, it is very, very difficult. It is always difficult when you have to go into a home and take children out or go into a home that has been a home, I guess, that has gone through physical assault and violence. It is very difficult. These people, these directors of Child, Youth and Family Services, and their staff, Mr. Speaker, are the front line people. They are the people who have to deal with these issues on a day-to-day basis no matter how significant they are, how difficult they are, and how hard it is sometimes, because I know it is hard for many of them. I have had friends who worked in child welfare in Labrador for a number of years, to the point, Mr. Speaker, where they were stressed on a regular basis and had to relocate to other parts of the Province, because of the tremendous workload and caseload that goes with this job in that particular region of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is not just dealing with those particular cases of front lines in the home and dealing with children and families, but it is all the other work that comes after that as well. We have often heard stories in Labrador where we have had shortages of people working with family court and the fact that a lot of these families don't have the support they often want to have from even a legal perspective. Quite often, it is directors of social work who they turn to, to try to get advise, to try and get answers, and to try and nurture them through that particular process.

We heard stories over the last year or two years about the lack of legal aid services in Labrador. I think the Minister of Justice moved swiftly to try and correct those problems, because he knew that there was a need for it and that it needed to be done. We certainly appreciate those efforts too, Mr. Speaker. This is obviously a move in the right direction and it speaks well of the government because it is a recognition of the fact that there is a need in this area and that there is a gap that is not being filled.

Mr. Speaker, I think back to the case of a small Innu child who was in foster care with the Tulk family in Pasadena back before Christmas and the incidents that arose around that particular child being in the custody of the Crown. Mr. Speaker, it was certainly a case where there was a lack of Child, Youth and Family Services workers to carry out the responsibility that was required in the Labrador region at that time. Apparently there were social workers contracted - contracted, which should never happen - to deal with this one particular case, and contracted from an office on the Island portion of the Province.

I do not want to see those things happen ever again - ever again - simply because I feel that any children who are in the custody of the government or of the Crown, and under the direction of a Director of Child, Youth and Family Services, they should have the adequate staffing and the adequate resources to deal with these important cases; because they are very, very important, I say to you, Mr. Speaker. They should have the resources to deal with these particular cases to make sure that there is not an incident like happened with the Tulk family in Pasadena back in November or December of this past year, because that was a very unfortunate situation.

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that an additional Director of Child, Youth and Family Services will be a welcoming position in Labrador, there is absolutely no doubt about that. Because you can build all the hospitals that you want, you can improve all the infrastructure that you want, you can put all the seniors' vans on the road that you want, but, at the end of the day, if you do not have the people, the human resources, to deliver the programs and deliver the services, Mr. Speaker, you have fallen short on the job, there is no doubt about that.

This is certainly a region of the Province where the demands on the system have been far-reaching. They have been probably more so than any other region of the Province, and that is for a variety of reasons. Not only in this part of the Province do you have a lot of communities spread out in both the North and South Coast, but many of those communities are isolated, they do not have a lot of front-line workers who they can depend upon, and quite often their first point of contact would be through the hospital in Goose Bay, or something of that nature, in which workers have to be dispatched to northern communities to carry out the work that is required of them.

So, Mr. Speaker, you are just dealing with a social workers who is going to be in an office in downtown St. John's, but rather one who is going to be in an office in Labrador, who is going to be flying and reaching out to people in all regions of Labrador as the need arises. That, in itself, is a challenge, and it is very difficult.

As well, Mr. Speaker, you are dealing with a very diverse culture of people: a society that is made up not only of transient military personnel from various countries around the world, a community of Labrador within itself that is not only just made up of people who have been born and raised there and of one background, but of diverse cultures. You have three Aboriginal cultures in that region, as well as the people who move in and out from other parts of the Province, so there is a very diverse culture of people, and often with different cultures there comes a different need, a different balance that has to be met.

There is no doubt that Child, Youth and Family Services have an important role to play in all of those particular issues, so, Mr. Speaker, I am just happy to see that the office will be located in Labrador, that the additional resource person will be there. I would also like to know if there are going to be any additional employees hired. Maybe the minister, when he stands, could give me the answer to that, if there will be any additional workers hired to work with this new Director of Child, Youth and Family Services in Labrador. Also, maybe he could tell me when the position will be starting, when we can hope to see the additional resources on the ground to be able to deal with the problems that are existing there. I guess the other question was, if he anticipates there will be any problem in filling this position. Because, as I said earlier, I know that government, back in response to a study two years ago on Community Health Services in Northern Labrador and in Central Labrador, increased the number of social workers in the region, but the real challenge came not in securing the money for the positions but in securing the people for the positions, because the recruitment component of it was very, very difficult.

I guess I would like to know if he anticipates any problem in recruiting for this position. I think, as I said earlier, the problem with recruitment there is no doubt the responsibility that goes with the job, the area that you have to often cover, and also, Mr. Speaker, the number of cases that get dealt with through this particular office is probably much higher than any of the other regions per capita in the Province that are dealing with child, youth and family welfare issues. These are just a few of the questions and concerns that I have around that position, and I am sure the minister will address that when he rises in a few minutes.

Other than that, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to acknowledge that this is a good move on behalf of the government. I am pleased to see that they have recognized that there is a problem there, and I commend them for taking the actions that they are in putting an additional person there to be able to fulfill those responsibilities and to carry out the work that is needed in Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say a few words on Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Child, Youth And Family Services Act.

I listened very carefully to the remarks of the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and I do want to echo them, to some extent, because this is the same view that we have concerning the special circumstances of Labrador and the need for a stronger focus by the department in that particular area because of its special circumstances.

The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair outlined them very well, but Labrador is a unique place in this Province, Mr. Speaker. Because of the special nature of the communities that are there, the fact that we have the three Aboriginal cultures - the Innu, the Inuit and the Metis - as a very important part of our whole provincial culture, but obviously working in various communities in Labrador with their own special difficulties, particularly with children and youth. Some of them have received some prominence, Mr. Speaker, but what you see on the TV is not the whole story. On the community level there needs to be a greater level of support. In fact, looking at alternatives to using the Child, Youth and Family Services Act to deal with the problems, that sometimes comes after the problems have been going on for some time. A great deal of attention has to be paid to the issues, the family issues in Labrador. Young people who are in need of services, there needs to be coherent policy framework and there needs to be someone on the ground who is in charge of that, who understands and has total focus on the particular needs of the families and young people in Labrador.

We have had, as everyone knows, and the member previous alluded to it, a situation of fostering, with the Tulk case in Pasadena. That was a very unfortunate circumstance, Mr. Speaker, when someone came and took that child without really any warning, without any special provisions being given.

When the minister defended it at the time, the previous minister, I think the statement was that all of the procedures had been followed. Mr. Speaker, if that was the case then I guess we have to say that maybe there is something wrong with the procedures. I understand that this matter has been referred to the Child and Youth Advocate for consideration. No doubt, that is one of the things that the Child and Youth Advocate would undertake to consider, whether the procedures and policies were adequate in circumstances where you have these significant cultural issues with respect to an Aboriginal child being in foster care in a different cultural environment. I think, despite the circumstances of the tough case, there is an underlying policy to respect the culture of an individual. Even in a fostering situation, a person of Aboriginal culture is entitled to have an understanding of that culture and the ability to be able to live in that culture if he or she so chooses.

So, I think there is a level of sensitivity that is required both in the fostering system and the procedures that are used. I think that this kind of consideration can best be given by having someone on the ground who has the right level of training, who has the right level of understanding and who has the support of the minister and the support of a government knowing that person is able to focus totally on the needs and particular circumstances in Labrador. It is not just the Aboriginal culture, as the previous speaker indicated, we have a fairly transient population, particularly in the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area with respect to the military activity. We have families and individuals, in historic times, from various parts of Europe. We have long historical patterns, of course, of settlers from Europe becoming part of the Labrador culture over the last number of generations.

Labrador West itself, as a senior mining town within the Province, has its own circumstances, too, that require a level of service that may be different from other parts of Newfoundland and Labrador because of the remoteness from other population centres, because of travel issues, because of the size of these communities. There needs to be a level of service there recognizing these special needs as well.

So, I do support this legislation. It is very straightforward, focused and a specific piece of legislation that provides that there can be an additional Director of Child, Youth and Family Services for Labrador, specifically to provide services for children, youth and families in the Labrador portion of the Province. I wholeheartedly endorse this amendment and I hope that the new director who is chosen and appointed will be able to address some of the concerns that have been raised. If that person is unable to address them, to make sure that the gaps in service, that the deficiencies, that the needs are brought to the attention of the minister so that they can be addressed.

We have had, unfortunately, a long history where the people and families of Labrador have been, to some extent, neglected by government. We had an operation called Labrador Services which was initially intended to provide services to Coastal Labrador and that, in some cases, tend to be the only services that were provided without having the full type of services that need to be available which can address the problems that young people have throughout the Province but, particularly, excruciating kind of problems that we have seen in Labrador in some of the communities. Hopefully, the new Director of Child, Youth and Family Services for Labrador will be able to address these issues in a more efficient way and a more focused way. As I said a moment ago, where the resources are inadequate, to make sure that the attention of the minister and the officials in the department are brought to bear on that fact so that these deficiencies can be addressed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

If the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services speaks now he will close the debate on Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Child, Youth And Family Services Act.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

I would like to thank the members opposite for their support of this. Government recognizes some of the unique challenges - including retention, social challenges, cultural challenges - that exist here.

Some of the questions that were raised by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, Mr. Speaker, I can certainly answer. One of them was about the hiring of this individual. The individual has been hired, has been in place now for sometime on a very temporary basis. That has proven to very effective. The person is from the community of Nain, who has a knowledge of the cultural issues in the area. We felt that as a result of the great need for another director in Labrador because of the challenges, somebody who has a specific knowledge of the Innu culture would be very, very helpful. That is the reason we are looking to change this particular legislation, to allow for a permanent and full-time position of a director within that area. So, I hope that answers your questions. That position is in place. There are challenges, obviously, as the member pointed out. Even with the funding available sometimes for physicians or for nurses and so on, there are challenges with recruitment and with retention, but the person, being from the community, being from the area, and with a very strong understanding of the culture and the issues, can be a very, very strong asset to the department.

I would like to thank, again, the members opposite for their support of this particular piece of legislation.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 18 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 Child, Youth and Family Services Act. ( Bill 18).

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Later today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Child, Youth and Family Services Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. ( Bill 18)

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

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

Order 6, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act. (Bill 9).

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 9, An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Occupational Health and Safety Act." (Bill 9)

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

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, this amendment simply does one thing: It changes the prosecution period of two years to when an official of the Occupational Health and Safety Branch becomes aware of an offence.

Previously, the prosecution period was two years from the offence allegedly taking place. By making this distinction, all employers are on equal footing for prosecutions when an offence happens. Previously, it was conceivable that if an employer knew about an offence but failed to report it until close to the two-year period, or after, there was little recourse for prosecution of the offence itself.

The system now will treat all employers fairly, as no employer will be able to avoid the statute of limitations by not reporting an incident. The statute of limitations of two years provides the Occupational Health and Safety official time to conduct an investigation, time to interview witnesses, consult with the Department of Justice, to determine if any charges will be laid against the employer.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill today, and this concludes my remarks.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This bill is not a major piece of legislation. I guess what it is doing is determining what is a minister and what is an assistant deputy minister - the definition. I guess a lot of this is shuffling around, because a lot of the responsibilities of the Department of Labour have been switched to other departments. There is no Department of Labour any more in this government. They decided, when they formed the government, that it was no longer necessary to have a Department of Labour, with a Minister of the Department of Labour sitting around the Cabinet table.

What they did was eliminate the Department of Labour and they turned certain responsibilities over to HRE and other responsibilities over to Government Services and Lands. I guess it gave the people in the Province, particularly the people within the labour movement within the Province, where this government stood, its priority in terms of where they stood in terms of labour within the Province, and we saw what they did in terms of the public service and all the other unions that were involved, in legislating people back to work.

It is interesting, we did have a Department of Rural Development - a business department - already existing, and they kept that particular department. They also created a Department of Business to promote business within the Province, but they did not see fit to set up a Department of Labour to look after labour issues and the things that pertain to the labour movement and to our workers within the Province.

I guess any amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act to make it more efficient, more effective, to protect our workers and protect the conditions of our workers - I find it disturbing. I observe a lot, what is going on in terms of construction around the Province, particularly in terms of small construction, and I notice more and more that there seems to be a lot more ignoring of safety equipment. I think we need to do more enforcement in terms of what is happening out there in the workplace.

I recently saw somebody in a mall, putting up Christmas decorations, up on about a thirty-five or forty-foot ladder, and the worker was up there practically with high-heel shoes on and no safety equipment and no hard hat or anything. I think we need to look at, more and more, some of the things, and how we enforce the occupational health and safety with this Province. Let's face it, we have had too many tragedies within our labour movement, within our workforce, so any move in this to make more effective the Occupational Health and Safety Act, we will approve.

The only problem I have is the problem I have with this government in terms of what it considers in terms of its priority for labour, and I think there should be a Department of Labour if we could put an extra minister in the government, set up the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs, a very, very important department. He wasn't going to increase the Cabinet size, but we did find the money to set up a Department of Intergovernmental Affairs. We didn't find the money to be able to set up a Department of Labour which would give the focus for the labour movement and the people working in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, those are the only few comments I have to make. I hope the minister will impress on her Cabinet colleagues, and on the Premier, that they need a new Department of Labour within the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

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

I rise today to say a few words on Bill 9, a few short words.

The change that is indicated by the minister is not one that we have any disagreement with, I say to the minister. The change that is intended here is certainly one that we can support.

I do want to echo the comments of the previous speaker, because I think they are very important comments when it comes to the Division of Occupational Health and Safety. Its rightful place in any government branch, no question, Mr. Speaker, no question at all, is under the Department of Labour. It has a focus under the Department of Labour. The people who deal with Occupational Health and Safety for the most part, people who are responsible for the implementation of it, people who deal with it on a daily basis through enforcement in the workplace, the joint committees, are all covered under Labour. This Act, Mr. Speaker, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, should also be covered under the Department of Labour.

Most times, I say to the minister, with no disrespect to her department, people who are dealing with labour issues, more often than not, are familiar with the people in the Department of Labour more so than any other government department. Why it was taken from the Department of Labour, back some years ago, and placed into the minister's department today, I have no idea, but its rightful place - no question - is under the Department of Labour. It is all part of the workplace, the workforce, in the Province, the joint committees that operate in each and every workplace, the reports. They should all go to the Minister of Labour who ultimately has responsibility for workers in this Province.

The only minister, I say, Mr. Speaker, who workers in this Province have is the Minister of Labour. Any other group in this Province can probably transcend different departments and cross over. The Chamber of Commerce deals with business, deals with government affairs, and probably intergovernmental affairs, industry, trade and technology, and these sort of things. But, labour, generally, only deals with one minister, and that is the Minister of Labour for the most part, and that is where the Occupational Health and Safety legislation should fall.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you to the Minister of Finance for his support when I rose to my feet that time.

I am pleased today to speak to Bill 9, An Act To Amend The Occupational Health and Safety Act. I concur with previous speakers who have said that this act really belongs with the Department of Labour. Having been the Minister of Labour, I know how important occupational health and safety is.

It was only a couple of weeks ago, I think it was April 28, that all of us took part in the acknowledgment of the day for injured workers and those who have died in the workplace. This is another facet of labour issues that is so important, occupational health and safety. I think the importance of our labour issues in this Province have been diminished somewhat by this new government in combining it with other departments.

I have to give credit to a former Premier, Roger Grimes, who saw the importance of a separate, stand-alone Department of Labour. Many of the issues that had been kicking around for up to twenty-five to thirty years had been dealt with. You can talk to anybody from the business or labour unions in our Province, they said that a lot was accomplished in those couple of years when we had a stand-alone Department of Labour.

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to your attention today, too, an issue that involves all of us here in this House of Assembly because actually, we are really a part of Occupational Health and Safety. An incident happened in this House of Assembly on Monday evening. It was directed directly at me, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans. I have to say, I was personally offended. It is relevant to the bill that we are discussing here today.

When I left here on Monday evening I was sitting down in my livingroom at around 9:00 p.m. and I listened to the VOCM news, Mr. Speaker. I could not believe what I heard on VOCM news at 9:00 p.m. I had heard that two backbenchers in this current government were making allegations against me. What they were saying is that I voted against the Budget, and by me voting against the Budget, I was voting against the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor. Now, that is what was alleged about me, and I was personally offended by that. The members in question are the Member for Windsor-Springdale and the Member for Exploits. Immediately upon hearing that, I decided I would call VOCM Open Line.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. the Government House Leader standing on a point of order?

MR. E. BYRNE: I am, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: If the member has difficulty with what members of government have said about her, that is one thing, but to say that has something to do with An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act and the Explanatory Notes are pretty clear. Clause 1 deals with: "...the Occupational Health And Safety Act by updating the definitions of ‘assistant deputy minister' and ‘minister.' Clause 2 of the Bill would amend the Act by changing the limitation period during which offences under the Act or regulations may be prosecuted."

Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that the member's debate on Bill 9 really - and this bill has nothing to do with what she is talking about and I would ask you to make a ruling with respect to relevance with respect to this particular bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans speaking to that point of order?

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say that the issue at hand really affected my occupation and also my health. I really want to elaborate and talk about this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is a point of order being raised.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is a point of order raised regarding the relevancy of the member's comments. I say to members, when they speak on second reading of a bill their comments should be kept relevant to the bill. While it can be broad ranging, because in second debate we talk about the spirit of the bill and not individual clauses. So I say to the hon. member, maybe she can rein in her remarks and keep it to the relevancy of the bill being discussed, Bill 9.

Thank you.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, and occupational health and safety is so very important. This government, of course, has been on the record as promoting health and safety.

Anyway, when I had the opportunity I called in. I wanted to say to the members who had made that statement, number one, I was not in the House on last Tuesday night when the Budget was voted upon. I went to my friend's funeral in Baie Verte. I left the House of Assembly on Tuesday evening, and 6:30 p.m. I got on the road and I drove to Grand Falls-Windsor. Then the next morning -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I say to the hon. member, if she is going to raise those issues that she is bringing forward today in debate as relevancy to this bill, I would ask her to let the Speaker know what the relevancy is of what she is debating as it concerns Bill 9, An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This act regarding occupational health and safety is an important one because we all know that what happens in the workplace is relevant to your personal health and safety; very relevant. Of course, if a person is brought in to question when there is no question, naturally it affects your health and well-being. In order for people to function with integrity and keep their principles and their morals intact, they have to be looked upon as being sincere, honest and doing their work as they were elected to do. So this is all relevant to a person's health and well-being.

When you look at the fact that a person's integrity was taken into account and questioned without ever a chance of being able to explain the reason. Not only that, these kinds of news releases did not come on the proper Web site of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, it came from the house of a party organizer. Now that would be the same thing as myself asking Tom Lush to put out a news release for me, which I will never do.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot at question here for anyone's health and well-being. I want to say that you cannot really tarnish a character of someone without affecting their health and well-being. You cannot besmirch anyone's integrity without affecting their health and well-being, particularly when that person has been working hard and long, and that person actually is the critic for Finance. That person who is in question here today is a critic for Finance. Now, what is the job of a critic for Finance? The job of a critic for Finance is to examine the financial details of the government, to give credit where credit is due, and that has been done many times. It is also the job of a Finance critic to point out shortcomings so that the citizens, the taxpayers of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, will have their health and well-being in check.

When you look at the fact, the Finance critic has a job to do: to make sure that the financial dealings of the Province are in order, number one, so the taxpayers are not saddled with the burden of paying undue taxes that are not necessary.

Never, in the history of this House of Assembly, has an Opposition ever voted with the governing party; never in the history of this House of Assembly.

MR. REID: Not on a Budget.

MS THISTLE: On the Budget.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I say to the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans again that the Speaker has had a chance to review Bill 9. Bill 9 is very, very clear, and very short. It says - and I will read it - "Clause 1 of the Bill would amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act by updating the definitions of "assistant deputy minister" and "minister". Clause 2 of the Bill would amend the Act by changing the limitation period during which offences under the Act or regulations may be prosecuted."

I say to the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, it is not the Speaker's intent to stifle debate or to limit the member from what she wants to say, but I would ask her to confine her remarks, if she would, to please confine her remarks to the spirit of Bill 9.

MR. REID: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.

MR. REID: I say out at the outset, Mr. Speaker, I am not questioning your authority or your ruling on that, but yesterday afternoon, in debating Bill 17 - and the title of that bill is An Act To Repeal The Gasoline Act and An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act - no, An Act To Repeal Obsolete Acts And To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, the Member for Labrador West got up and talked about Air Canada pulling out of St. John's and spoke at length, I say, Mr. Speaker. I think he spoke twenty minutes about how Air Canada should not be permitted to pull its flights out of St. John's, Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, it was questioned at that time by the Government House Leader as to what relevance that had to An Act To Repeal Obsolete Acts And To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. He got up and gave a reason no better, and not as good, in my estimation, as my colleague, the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor is giving today about her conversation being relevant than he did yesterday.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss to understand why he was relevant yesterday and my colleague right here today, who is obviously, I find, relevant, when she is talking about the Occupational Health and Safety Act and she is talking about her ability to perform her job in this House of Assembly when others opposite are trying to disrupt her in that by putting out press releases, I do find that relevant, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi standing to that point of order?

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

(Inaudible) to that point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do recall, in times past, a lengthy debate at the Committee stage on a piece of legislation and I believe we were here all night long. Some members were here and we went all night long. The Chair of the Committee had passed a number of sections of the act and all we were left with at the time was the title of the act, and the act was called an act to amend whatever act it was, with a date 2004 or 1999. We were called on relevance many times by members opposite. They are now sitting opposite the government here today. When the then Leader of the Opposition and I were speaking, and had turns speaking that night, the issue of relevance came up many times, and we talked about the title of the bill. I think we might have spent about three hours talking about the title of the bill, and whether it should be called the act of 1999 or whether it should be called the act of 2000.

I suppose if the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans wants to talk about An Act To Amend The Occupational Health and Safety Act, and she wants to talk about the Occupational Health and Safety Act, or whether the amendments being proposed are adequate to meet her particular concerns, then I guess that is relevant in some way. It may be a stretch, but stretch next to me here managed, yesterday, to convince the Chair that Air Canada was a consumer rights issue -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member if he would clue up his point of order, please.

MR. HARRIS: - and that it could be considered.

That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker, in support of the possibility that the member is speaking in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

As the Speaker said earlier, it is not the Speaker's intent to stifle debate on second reading here. In the past, there have been many things that have happened here where the Speaker has not risen on a point of order, but sometimes I think it is important to bring it around to make people aware of where the debate should be going and to try to keep their remarks relevant to the topic being discussed.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, and, of course, my colleague, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, for his contribution to relevance in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, we are embarked on a debate on the subject of occupational health and safety and, being in this House of Assembly, I think it is very important that we all respect each other in this House of Assembly. Respect is so important in occupational health and safety: respect in debate, respect for the other person's opinion, and respect so that you do not tarnish the character of an individual who is doing their job to represent their people - when it is entirely false.

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we, in the House of Assembly, set a good example for people who might be out there looking at us today and looking to us for guidance on issues, guidance for decisions and so on; because, if we do not do our work of respecting each other in the House of Assembly, how can we expect respect from the general population?

Mr. Speaker, I did receive a half-hearted apology from the members I mentioned earlier in the day, which contributed to my well-being and my occupational health. I did receive, over the airwaves, a half-hearted apology, but then, do you know something? That apology turned to sand, because - I thought they had issued a proper apology over the airwaves, and - at 10:57 they got on the fax machine and sent The Advertiser in Grand Falls-Windsor the very same thing. So, how can I accept an apology at 9:30 and then at 10:57 they turn about-face and do the same thing again to the Grand Falls The Advertiser? That does not contribute to your health and well-being from an occupational standpoint.

MR. HUNTER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale, on a point of order.

MR. HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, I would like for the member to get her facts straight. That press release was sent out in the morning, in the a.m., was not received in the p.m., so I would like for her to tell the truth on this matter. It is very important.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

I say to members again, when they stray away from the relevance of the bill this is what happens, you get confrontation back and forth, what one member said outside the House and what another member said. I don't think this is where this particular debate on this particular bill should be going.

I say to the hon. member again, if you would be kind enough to maintain and contain you remarks to the relevancy of the bill that we are debating here today. I ask you indulgence, please.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I understand exactly and I appreciate the fact of your ruling on these points.

I would like to say to the Member for Windsor-Springdale, I have a fax in my hand that says, May 8, 2006, Monday, 10:57 p.m. If you want me to lay that on the Table for public perusal, I am pleased to do so.

In fact, you cannot continue to have good health and well being if someone is tarnishing your character, particularly when it is well known that I, amongst other people in my district, fought long and hard for the cancer clinic. In fact, I was the first one to go over and shake the hand of the Premier and say thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: I will give the member one more chance. If the Chair rises again to bring this conversation back to the relevancy of the bill, I will have no other choice but recognize somebody else.

I ask the member for the last time, if she would kindly contain her remarks to the relevancy of this particular bill.

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

I know it is difficult when there is a bill like this being discussed.

Anyway, I want to talk about this bill, Bill 9, An Act To Amend The Occupational Health and Safety Act. This is one of the most important bills that I think we have brought to the Legislature this session. It gave us all an opportunity, as members of this hon. House, to stand and say how important the workplace is and how we should live by the guidelines set out by the House of Assembly. All of us who are in this workplace, this hon. House, we are here to do a job and it is an honourable job we are doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: It is so important for us to live and work by the rules set out by this House of Assembly, and all of those rules come under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Even though there is not a separate department that would encompass these rules like before, when we had a Department of Labour, I know that the Minister of Government Services knows how important this Act is. She is one who sits in her seat and understands. I have never seen her give anything but respect to other members in this House. She is setting the example herself. The bill is written for her, the hon. Minister of Government Services. It is easy to see that we have a female in that job, who is doing a good job in trying to put through this bill to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans that her speaking time has expired.

MS THISTLE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MS THISTLE: No leave, no respect.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Government Services speaks now, she will close the debate on Bill 9, An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the hon. members for their support over there.

I want to clarify for the viewing audience out there, there may be some confusion what I am trying to do here, but it is just a simple amendment. All I am asking in this amendment is to give the occupational health and safety officials a two-year period where they can do an investigation, do interviews with witnesses, consult with the Department of Justice to determine if there will be any charges laid against an employer. That is what the intent of this bill is and nothing more than that.

I want to say to the hon. members, thank you again for your support and I look forward to closing debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 9 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 Occupational Health And Safety Act. (Bill 9)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Later today.

MR. SPEAKER: Later today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 9)

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

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

I want to move to the next order on the Order Paper, which is Order 7, second reading of An Act To Amend The Forestry Act. (Bill 15)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Forestry Act." (Bill 15)

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

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

It is a pleasure to rise to introduce today a piece of legislation, really, that confirms current practice - Was it Order 7?

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill 15.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes it was, Bill 15.

Really, a piece of legislation that confirms the current practice and past practices of the division of Forestry, and Department of Forestry, as it relates to agreements between or within the industry between pulp and paper companies, rural Newfoundland and Labrador communities - whether it be in Hampden, whether it be in Sexton Lumber in Bloomfield, whether it be related to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair's district, for example, Strugnells operation in Southern Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, what is important to understand about this piece of legislation is: Why is there a need, from the provincial government's point of view, to even bring forward a piece of legislation to confirm current practices? Mr. Speaker, here is why. Prior to us becoming government there were a number of court cases that were launched against the former government with respect to practices related in the forestry industry. One of the results of those court cases was that the judge - and I will not get into the details of the court case because that is erroneous, I think, but what is important was the judge's ruling that questioned the Province's right to enter into the types of agreements and arrangements that we enter into right now. The ruling that came out of that was - the judge's ruling was that there was a need for clarification with respect to the current practices within the department. Current meaning back in 2002-2003.

So, Mr. Speaker, the department essentially, based upon that, reviewed the legislation, the regulations, and looked for ways and means in how we would bring this forward that would satisfy members in the industry. For example, who supports this current bill? The Newfoundland and Labrador Lumber Producers Association supports the bill. I have talked to members of the CEP locals, particularly the rep for both locals, Mr. Ron Smith. He passed out the legislation to those to have a look at and review the legislation, they support the bill. The two pulp and paper companies, they support the bill because it really confirms current practices. It does not interfere, and will not interfere, with any unionized labour; as work as related on company lands. That will not impact, because there was a concern raised that in these timber sale agreements from say Abitibi's lands or Corner Brook Pulp and Paper's lands, would in any way by exchanging fibre, prohibit or inhibit or stop unionized loggers, for example, from getting to cut that wood. That is not the case. Every exchange agreement that we currently have in place respects the collective agreements of locals and will continue to do so, because it is important for it to do so.

What are the benefits of amending the act? Well, Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear. Cabinet, and it is not - I think what is an important feature of this bill as well is that we are not asking for the Legislature to give the minister responsible for forestry, whether that is me today, which it is, or some future minister the authority. We are not asking for that. To be frank, as a Minister of the Crown, I would not want that authority exclusively in my hands. I think it is a responsibility that should be associated with the Cabinet decision-making process.

For those who may be watching, this provides, I think, and will provide for the appropriate checks and balances, that if we were to enter into these agreements, then that would have to go to the Cabinet Committee, in this case Economic Policy Committee of Cabinet, where six or seven different Cabinet Ministers, whoever may be appointed to that committee, would have to review it. Then, once a recommendation came from that process, it would go to the full Cabinet Table for it to be reviewed yet again.

Now, I think that is an important feature of this particular bill, simply because it allows for a greater discussion to occur amongst all Cabinet colleagues and government caucus who would represent a variety of views in a variety of districts, as compared to if it was just the minister responsible. Then you could act really holus-bolus and without fear of contradiction, although you may be acting with good intentions, get yourself and the government into a situation that you would not want to get it into. From that point of view, I think it is an important feature of the act that it has to go through the Cabinet Committee process. In saying that, it is extremely important for us to understand that Cabinet, based upon that court decision that emanated from an action of an operator back in 2001-2002 and based upon the judgement that came forward from the judge in that case, it is important that we clarify and that we need, as a government, not just this government and any future government, would need the authority to maintain, in our view, the stability in the local forest industry to ensure the sustainability of communities. Because the industry is not just about pulp and paper anymore. The industry is so integrated with the integrated sawmill industry, and there is a symbiotic relationship there that they coexist. One could not really happen without the other today.

So, this bill would, I think, ensure the sustainability of rural communities. Just for people who may be watching - I know members would know - when asked a question today, if we were to ask the question in the public today: What industry in Newfoundland and Labrador provides the most economic benefits, the most economic returns to rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador? This would just be my instinct and what my stomach tells me, is that most people would think, in rural Newfoundland, it would be the fishery, and that is not the case.

The industry that provides the most economic benefits to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, in the most communities - I am not trying to diminish the impact of the fishery because it has a significant place, but it is the forestry industry. A $1.5 billion to $1.6 billion return in terms of the gross domestic product. It employs, directly and indirectly today, over 12,500 people. Where is that occurring, those employment levels? All of those employment levels are occurring in rural parts of the Province. They are occurring in Darcy Major's operation in Deer Lake. They are occurring in Ted Lewis's operation in Hawke's Bay. They are occurring in Bob Dingwall's and Kevin Sexton's operations in your own district, Mr. Speaker. They are occurring in Southern Labrador in the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair's district. They are occurring in Goose Bay, and will be occurring in Goose Bay. Just to name a few. They are occurring in Mike Sinnicks operation out in Port Blandford in terms of the hardwood industry and the products and the value that we are adding to those. That is where the industry is occurring, in rural places. It is occurring the Member for Humber Valley's district, in Fred Osmond's operations in Hampden, the single biggest employer and probably the only employer in Hampden, a significant employer in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. These operations are critical, critical and fundamental, to the survival of many rural communities, to the survival of many rural towns.

How does this bill impact that? It sustains it, Mr. Speaker. I will just give you an example of how this industry has evolved.. The members opposite know, because the way the industry is structured today - and I will give them credit, the former ministers who were directly involved, former minister Kevin Aylward, former minister and passing, Rick Woodford, in particular, and former minister Beaton Tulk of Forestry and Agrifoods. Each and every one of those ministers had a hand in the development - positive development I might add - of this very important and significant industry.

As time goes on, the Newfoundland and Labrador Lumber Producers Association started twenty-five years ago. I was out to their annual general meeting Saturday past in Gander and spoke. Members of that Association talked about where that industry was and where it is now, and how twenty-five years ago the larger pulp and paper companies of the world thought: Yes, exchange saw logs for chips! Sure, as if we are ever going to do that. Twenty-five years later we created an industry, government did. I just want to acknowledge former ministers and the former government who had a role in moving this industry to where it is.

Here is how important this piece of legislation is. Former ministers and members of government would understand what I am about to say, because it is the premise on which our exchange agreements are based and why it is so critical, and so important for us - based upon that court action - to continue to protect the basis on which this industry is built. Here it is: We need the authority as a government to maintain the stability in the industry for local communities, sustainability, as aggressive competition, for example, for the purchase of saw logs and pulpwood could drive weak or smaller competitors in the industry out of business, and in doing so smaller operations, by creating that competitive advantage for larger operations, if we weren't doing what we were doing, could create severe hardships in communities in which they are located and drive some out of business.

Mr. Speaker, it could give a smaller number of companies comprising the local pulp and paper industry, the integrated saw milling sectors as I just talked about, the inability to direct the flow of timber and could result, legitimately, in monopolies and an eventual drop off in the prices paid for fibre.

Now, if someone doesn't believe that can happen, I am going to give you a tangible example. It has not happened here, but it happened about six or seven years ago in England. The English had a marketing structure similar to this for their milk industry in terms of directing the flow of product. What happened was one of the larger stores or monopolies, one of the larger bulk stores, came into the region of about forty producers, picked off a couple of producers from the larger producers and said: Look, we are going to give you a better price than what is being currently offered. Don't worry about it. Why are you, as the larger producers of a particular product, even supporting such a regime within the context of your industry? Boy, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, those four or five larger producers bought that argument, and it worked for them for about four years, they were getting higher prices. But guess what happened? Over that four year period, everyone else began to drop off one by one, two by two, until such a time that that large monopoly was only dealing with those four or five larger producers. When they had control of the marketplace, in terms of a monopoly from which they could buy, and they were the only outlet in which those producers could get their product to market, do you believe for one minute that prices stayed where they were? No, they dropped to lower than where they were four years ago.

This piece of legislation is important. It is important for rural communities and the stability within the industry and our ability to maintain our right, as the Crown, to enter into arrangements which we - I will give you an example. Two weeks ago the Member from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair came to see me about a challenge one of her operators had, and would I be able to assist and make certain recommendations. We worked with the pulp and paper company, worked with the operator, and I am glad to say today that we are able to do that. That is not an exclusive situation. This occurs from time to time. Right now, for example, we are trying to mitigate a significant drop in the fiber supply in Districts 4, 6 and 8. The fiber supply across Newfoundland and Labrador is generally very healthy, very healthy for the next five to twenty years.

In the Western Region of our Province, Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, for example, they need to be commended for their absolute sound management in terms of utilization of timber. As a result of sound management, their fiber supply was increased to 10.8 per cent. Abitibi's is remaining stable, a small drop but stable, nothing that will impact workforce. For watershed reasons, further alienation of Crown land, protected areas, and further-to-reach stands in Districts 4, 6 and 8, there was a significant drop, and we acknowledge that upfront.

In doing so, I met with operators in District 8, and I am going to be meeting with all operators in that area as soon as the House closes. There are people who are not too happy with myself right at the moment, because they don't feel that the basis on which those decisions were made were valid. I will go out and deal with all those operators in good faith and upfront. We believe we have a number of ways that we can mitigate that impact that will keep them whole.

One of the ways, and an important way, is an exchange for timber, saw logs for chips, or exchange for timber agreements, because, believe it or not, even though there is a fiber supply available to the larger companies, year-over-year they don't necessarily utilize all of it, and that creates opportunity. That creates an opportunity for us to get into these types of arrangements, exchange arrangements, that can keep communities whole without jeopardizing the sustainability, I say, Mr. Speaker. This is a principle that former ministers have stood on, and I share that with them, and one that myself, as the minister, and this government will stand on without compromising sustainability.

Mr. Speaker, I have talked about what stakeholders were consulted, and I think this is important to point out because everybody was. Just to give you an example: I remember when I was first appointed minister - that is two and a half years ago - for the last two and a half years it has been recommended to me, each and every session that the House opened, that this piece of legislation be brought before the Legislature, and each and every time it came for me to consider it, I said no, and I will tell you why I said no. This legislation is not a creation of this government. This was a piece of legislation that was under consideration by the last government as well, just prior to the election. I am not saying they didn't bring it in because there wasn't time to do so, but it was one of those significant public policy issue in the forestry industry that straddled from one election to the next and we had to deal with it.

I want to get back to my point. The reason I did not bring it forward until now was because there was not a consensus within the shareholders. There was not a consensus at the Newfoundland and Labrador Lumber Producers Association because there was a feeling, particularly two years ago, that this type of legislation - and there were some other features that I changed, that I did not agree with, that I have hauled out of it, but there was a feeling that this legislation would have been set up for the exclusive purpose of benefiting the pulp and paper industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. There was a strong feeling amongst CEP locals that I meet with regularly. I met with them last Saturday past in Grand Falls, in the union hall, about issues generally. I meet with them every two to three months, as the minister responsible for the industry. There was a strong feeling by them that was also the case, and each and every time I said no, I am not bringing forward a piece of legislation unless the stakeholders in the industry understand intimately what this legislation will do, how positive it should be and will be, and a lot of the recommendations that you see in here, what the features of the legislation are, have emanated from suggestions made by those very stakeholders, in particular the CEP locals. I spoke earlier about why it is important to have Cabinet decide on these arrangements, and not the minister responsible. That was a valid suggestion made by the CEP locals themselves, and I share their assessment.

Once I felt we had a consensus - there is still an issue there, I think, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi talked to me about earlier, but I will leave that for him to have a discussion in his own commentary on it. Once I felt strongly that a consensus was achieved by the stakeholders in the industry, I felt it was important to bring it forward.

Now, let's look at this. Let's look at a situation that just occurred. On the Northern Peninsula, earlier this year - I want to talk about two situations. On the Northern Peninsula, early this year, we woke up with the reality, all of us here, where, exclusively in districts 17 and 18 on the Northen Peninsula - one which is leased land to Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, the other district is Crown land - where Corner Brook Pulp and Paper made a decision carte blanche: we are not going to purchase any wood from the Northern Peninsula this year - bottom line.

Now, we all know what the consequences of that would be, but in terms of trying to diversify the economy, from our perspective, having the ability to entertain the notion of directing the flow of wood, which was past practice anyway, gives some more comfort, in my view, and some more real power to the Cabinet process in government to not have regions of the Province be holding to a particular entity. Now, that is not just the pulp and paper industry. As the industry is going and we are adding more value and we are putting strategies in place to add more value, Mr. Speaker, that also could be, at some point in time, I could predict, without this legislation, that could be a single integrated sawmill operator as well. So, in order to provide the type of balance that is required, this legislation is absolutely essential.

Unlike the fishery, this industry, we have control of it from stem to stern. We have control of the fibre supply. We have control of our decision-making in what we invest in the fibre through silviculture agreements and otherwise. We have control over the management. We have control over punitive penalties that we might want to put in place if rules and regulations and legislation are not followed. We have control over the licensing sector, so we have control over capacity, which means that we can, on a systematic year-over-year basis, with sound decisions and sound investments, we can continue to have the industry vibrant, we can continue to have the industry survive, and, more importantly, we can, on a sustainable basis, continue to have communities employed in Newfoundland and Labrador through a sustainable renewable forestry industry. Part and parcel of the management of being able to do exactly that is this piece of legislation. That is how critical it is.

It would not be a leap, in my view, to say that, from the forestry sector's point of view, that when it comes to a piece of legislation that will have an immediate and direct impact upon rural communities and their survival, and their ability to offer a sustainable economy, this legislation will do exactly that. That is the impact of it. It will create, from government's point of view, a balance within the industry.

Bigger is not always better. Just because someone can go out and say, well, I can offer you a better price for your 3,000 or 5,000 cubic metres of wood but I am going to set up shop in one area - the economics of that may be great, if you are pooling it from everywhere else. This piece of legislation has a big social conscience associated with it. It provides the opportunity for us to manage our industry on a sustainable basis with fairness for communities who are currently operating in it by not putting in place overcapacity, but at the same time ensuring that the market does not create big, huge monopolies so communities who are currently surviving in a real and tangible and sustainable way will have the ability to continue to survive in a real, tangible and sustainable way.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my opening comments with respect to this bill on the amendments to the Forestry Act. I look forward to the debate by the members opposite. I look forward to debate in Committee. I do want to acknowledge, once again, that this legislation emanates from a long history of how the industry has grown, in particular, since 1992-1993. Out of that, I think it is important to put it in perspective, that when - and a measure.

I want to compliment the former members in government who were a part of this because around that time, with the collapse of the Northern Cod and the collapse of the industry, governments of the day began to get creative in terms of: How can we add more value to other resource industries in Newfoundland and Labrador? This piece of legislation is a product of all that time. It is a product of former ministers, former Cabinets. It is a product of the industry of Newfoundland and Labrador Lumber Producers Association moving in a direction to try to add value to the industry. It is a product of the pulp and paper companies who, at one time during that time, felt that would never work, who now are involved and so integrated in the industry that it is almost impossible to separate it and their continued involvement. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, it is a product of how an industry, where people can get creative, and as a Province we can get creative and put differences aside, that we do have the ability to grow an industry in Newfoundland and Labrador when we have control of it from stem to stern in terms of the fibre supply and management side and an industry by where, right now - and I would say this without fear of contradiction - is probably a model for the country, no question about it.

For members opposite and members who might not know, in every one of our forest management districts, with the exception of a couple in Labrador because of where the development of those areas are, not only do we go through five-year operating plans, but they are also approved through an environmental assessment plan as well. The only Province in the country that does that.

So, I want to commend the industry, those who have been involved in decision making in the past, and urge members for the speedy passage of this legislation because of the importance that it has in sustaining rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for his comments because, as he is well aware, the Bay of Islands is dependent upon the pulp and paper industry also. Not only Kruger, but a lot of the pulp workers are in the Bay of Islands; loggers in around Hughes Brook on both sides. It is a very important industry, not only to the Bay of Islands but to all of Corner Brook.

I agree with the minister, that anything you can do for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, for sustainability in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, is welcome. For myself, personally, and I know for the Bay of Islands, people do not realize how much the forest industry is in the Bay of Islands also. It is something that is almost pushed away and it is not there.

You mentioned about the situation you had up on the Northern Peninsula. With that, there were twenty-six loggers from the Corner Brook area who were affected - unionized loggers who were affected through the decision by Kruger also. A lot of them were from Corner Brook and the Bay of Islands. It is an industry which touches a lot of people and a lot of communities in the Province.

Some of the notes that I had made and some people asked me to bring up, and the minister did answer. For example: What consultations went into the bill? The minister mentioned that he sent out a copy of the bill to most all the stakeholders, all the unions in the Province, and most all were onside with the bill. Of course, anybody within the industry would like to have stability. They would like to have some way to say that we have control from start to finish; which would, in any industry, provide stability. Once you have stability you know what you are working with and you can form your business and your business relationship and partnerships around it. That is very important.

Another thing that a few people - I knew it, but a few people asked me and the minister explained it quite well, was: Why was the bill being amended? It is because of the court case. We all know about the court case that came up a few years back and the reason why and the controversy that this court case caused. Once again, if there is something here that can strengthen the act itself and once the act is strengthened, to take away any ambiguity in the act and in the forest industry is welcome to all stakeholders in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Another thing that the minister brought up and I was asked to bring up, and I am sure we can discuss it in committee later, is that once you are told where to cut and had some way to say here is who is going to cut it: Will the cost go down? The minister assured that the cost will not go down. The price for the woodcutters who are cutting the wood on a specific piece of land, there was a concern there, that if you said: Okay, you have to sell to this producer here. Will this producer now say: No, we have the wood. Will the price go down for the loggers who are cutting the wood? That is a major concern, because what can happen, if you know you are going to be guaranteed to get the wood, then here is all I am going to pay for the wood. So, I am sure there is some kind of legislation put in place or regulations put in place to ensure that if this is the price per cord of wood that is going to be cut, this is the price that has to be paid, no matter who buys the wood and whoever needs the wood at the time. That is a major concern that a few of the loggers mentioned to me, that to ensure for their own viability and for their own livelihood that this will be taking place.

The other thing they mentioned was, if a parcel of land and a portion of the wood is given, will they be dictated to as to when they will have to cut the wood? Would it have to be cut on the time of the person buying it, when they need it, or can it be stockpiled? That is a major concern. Will they say, okay, we want you to work just six or seven weeks in the summer and six or seven weeks in the winter? That is a concern that they have. The minister says no, and I am sure the minister will explain that later. Those are just some of the concerns that were raised to me that I am sure the minister will clarify, to ensure that the workers of the industry itself will make sure that the livelihoods of the people who are working in it are sustained, not only the producers but the loggers often.

The minister mentioned that if there are any changes now to the legislation, it will have to go through Cabinet. This is always a good idea, absolutely always a good idea. Myself, personally, and I am sure any member in the House of Assembly, by doing your duty - if you were asked to call to make a representation on somebody's behalf you would. If it is an easy decision to make, or if a minister could sway one way or the other, it is easier for everybody. You would be doing your duty, of course, but then sometimes politics and not the longevity steps in. If any decision that has to be made has to go through the Cabinet committees and then finally Cabinet, that is a step in the right direction. Sometimes it is harder for us politicians, who have to stand up and fight for issues in our districts and bring forward concerns, but for the long-term viability of the industry that is a great decision to have made.

I say to the minister again, being a person from rural Newfoundland and Labrador and knowing the impact of the industry on Newfoundland and Labrador, it is a very vital component of our economy. The sustainability of the wood in our Province is a priority for all of us, not just in some areas where it may have a small impact or a big impact, but collectively it does have a major impact on the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As we saw down on the Northern Peninsula - I know what the minister had to do down there. If we were in government, and if I was anywhere near it, I would do the same thing. You had to find some way, in the short term, to get you over the bridge until you can work out the long-term solution. In the pulp and paper industry, especially when it comes to Kruger or Abitibi - I am more familiar with Kruger than Abitibi - it is the volatility. Circumstances change with Kruger on a regular basis. Sometimes you have to step up on a short-term basis down on the Northern Peninsula because there were a lot of people dependent on the decision on Kruger. A lot of loggers would have been.... We have to look at the long term and find some way to get a long-term result so this will not occur every year, not only for the government but for the loggers, the workers, and the Krugers up there.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks on that. I will just say to the minister and the members opposite, I will just concur with what the minister said. I know personally, because I have worked in the mill, my dad worked in the mill, my family worked in the mill, and I still have family working in the mill. The industry in Newfoundland and Labrador has gone beyond the big industries of Kruger's and Abitibi's. It is more in rural Newfoundland and Labrador now, the secondary processing with the wood. The more we can do of that, the more jobs we will create in Newfoundland and Labrador. The more jobs we can create, the better Province we are going to have.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say a few words on Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act.

I have to say that I agree with the previous speaker, the previous two speakers, on the importance of this legislation and the importance of the forestry industry to Newfoundland and Labrador, and particularly the many communities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador who supply the workforce for the logging industry, for the sawmill industry, for the pulp and paper industry. Many people get their livelihood by working in the forest, managing the forest, working with the forestry service and in other ways assisting in the industry, making products, whether they be pulp and paper, through the two major companies now operating in the Province, or in terms of sawmills and the products that come out of them.

It is very significant power that - there are a very significant number of people affected by it. I think we are being asked here to give Cabinet an awful lot of power. I am glad - along with the Member for Bay of Islands - it is the Cabinet as opposed to the minister. Nothing against this particular minister. This minister has gone out of his way to ensure that the stakeholders have been consulted along the way on this. I think it is important that has been done, because this is a tremendous amount of power being given to the government to regulate this industry to affect sales, to affect the flow of timber - as the minister talked about - in an industry where the property, I suppose, the resource, is actually owned by a Crown, a common-property resource.

What the government is going to have the power in legislation to do is to say: Yes, you can cut this timber but it must be sold to a certain particular party or it must be a right of first refusal to a particular party that is designated by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

I do not know if I heard the detail of the minister in terms of a right of first refusal. Clearly, if I have a buyer of a certain price and if I can get that price from this buyer, the right of first refusal goes to a person designated by the minister. If that person or that company does not want to pay that price, I can sell it to a third party; but, if it is being ordered to be sold to a particular party, the question remains: How is that price determined? Obviously, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council is not going to determine that price, necessarily. There needs to be some mechanism for that price to be determined, and the terms and condition of the sale.

I am hoping the minister can enlighten us on that, if he had not dealt with that in detail in his first remarks, because that is an important point. There is one thing to say we are going to control the flow of timber to ensure that certain operations are kept viable, but there must be some mechanism whereby the price is fair to both sides, where, if I have an order, say, I can cut the timber but I have to sell it to so-and-so, and so-and-so has the right to decide what the price is going to be, well that is not a very healthy situation for the person cutting the timber. So, there must be some mechanism there to settle the price.

The second thing that I have to say - and I understand what the minister's general principles are here. The idea is to ensure stability in the industry, and the viability of operations in communities. My question has become: How is all of that determined? Is it simply a matter of ministerial policy? Is the Cabinet setting policy on that? How is it determined as to which communities, or which operations, or which functions are to receive the support of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council? What is the mechanism, in other words?

We had a debate in this House, a very important debate a couple of year ago, in terms of changes to the acts grating timber leases to Abitibi-Consolidated. All of the leases are about to expire at certain periods of time between 2006, I believe, and 2020 . We decided that they were by legislation, and this was subject to negotiations with Abitibi-Consolidated, that all the timber leases were going to expire at the one time in 2010.

One of the amendments that was made, and it was made at my suggestion - well, it was my amendment - that prior to, and for a period of eighteen months, I believe, prior to that expiry in 2010, there would be a consultation process involving all the stakeholders who might have ideas as to what should happen to all of these timber leases, whether other communities need to have access to parts of those timber leases, whether it be for cutting or for other uses, and there was a very full debate in the House of Assembly at that time about the security of tenure of these leases, the terms of these leases and arrangements, and all of those things, and the notion was that at a certain point in time there was going to be some kind of commission to hear what everybody has to say about these issues before the period of time came to renew them.

I presume that would allow all these interests to come forward in a public forum and then someone be able to decide what was in the best interests of the people of the Province. Obviously, at the end of the day, government can make these decisions, but I would like to know: Is there going to be a policy framework that is spelled out in legislation or in regulation that says when this power would be exercised so that people would have a good idea, if they are applying for Crown timber limits or timber leases, what the rules are? What are the rules of this game? How do I get in? How do I not get in?

As the Member for Bay of Islands said, the previous situation where the minister - essentially what you do is lobby the minister. If you lobby the minister and you are successful, you might get the minister to give you a right of first refusal or place that as a condition on the lease. So, that is a question that arises here.

I do not have a difficulty with the principles espoused by the minister in terms of recognizing that you have to have some stability in the industry and you are going to avoid monopolies. These are things that the minister is saying here, this particular minister. Of course, there may be another minister and another government while this legislation is still in force. Is there anything that, on an ongoing basis, is going to ensure that the rules are known and that people have a good idea of what the principles are being applied. That is something that I have a concern about, so there is no real scheme of the act other than making sure that the powers exist in the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to do this kind of thing.

There is another point I have to raise. This is something that I raise, and I say this because I have a long-standing involvement with the forestry industry in my capacity as a lawyer, in that I represented the loggers' union off and on beginning back in 1989, so I am aware of the relationships that they have with the paper companies, and the collective agreements, and how they operate. I am glad to hear from the minister that the CEP is supportive of this legislation. I just had a conversation with one of the leaders of the CEP, certainly confirming that the CEP, on a go-forward basis, is supportive of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to have this power, and has been involved in the consultation process with the minister.

There is a section of the Act that I wanted to bring to members' attention. I hesitate to take a particular stand on it, Mr. Speaker, because it is something that came to my attention as a legal counsel in a particular case. I will lay it on the table just to let the people know as to how some of the provisions could be used, and in the past may have been used, to undermine the rights, for example, of loggers under their collective agreements.

I am thinking particularly of clause 4 which is kind of a retroactivity provision which validates existing permits. What it says is: Before the section comes into force, if the minister or a forestry official issued a cutting permit and specified, as a term or condition of the cutting permit, that timber cut under the permit be first offered for sale as directed by the minister or forestry official, that term or condition shall be considered to have been validly issued under the Act. I understand there have been a previous legal case that has gone to court where it was questioned - in fact, I think it was questioned that the minister had the authority to make this restriction, and a court case turned on it.

There is in existence a circumstance, and this is where there was some union concern, that the possibility of exchanging timber limits is mentioned where a paper company had its own timber limits and surrendered them to the Crown. Then, presumably, becoming Crown limits it would be covered by this legislation. Then a permit was issued on those particular limits to a company that was non-unionized that cut the allowable cut on those limits using a non-union workforce, and, at the end of the cutting period, the limits were then transferred back to the Crown and given back to the company, thereby avoiding, in factual terms, the application of the collective agreement. Because, when the wood was being cut, in theory at least, it was no longer on the timber limits of the company and therefore the collective agreement did not apply.

I bring that up to the House because that is the kind of a situation, as the minister mentioned, that the unions were very dubious about; some of this legislation that was presented in the past two or three years. I would submit, it is my guess that would be one of the reasons why, because of things like that, that could and might have happened in the past. This is a matter still under dispute, I say to members. It has still not being resolved. It is still going through a legal process. The concern that I wish to raise here - and I do not think this is intended by the minister - is whether this provision in clause 4 might give support to one side or the other in this particular dispute that is ongoing.

As I say, I raise that as something that I do not want - I am trying to avoid any conflict of interest suggestion, because I am familiar with this because of my involvement in a case. I am not going to vote, I am not going to make any amendment, I am not going to do anything except to draw to members' attention as a possible consequent of the Act. It is one of the reasons, perhaps, as the member said, why the unions may have been concerned about the kind of powers that the minister may have had in the past, and what kind of powers previous versions of the Act might have given to the minister.

I can certainly confirm what the minister has said, that the CEP - my conversation with one of the major leadership players today certainly confirmed it in an ongoing go-forward basis - are very supportive of this approach and they have faith that the government's intentions for the future are valid. I just wanted to raise this issue because I would not want the House to be interfering with an existing case unless that was, in fact, the intention of the government. That is something the minister himself might be able to clarify for us.

Having said that, I think the notion of having a situation where we are not going to have monopolies develop, where we are going to see a sustainable forestry system that recognizes that communities have a lot of input and a lot of need for forest resources, I think it is an important step forward.

I do not think enough is really known about how much our forest resources can actually produce. I mentioned, in the previous debate on the timber limits, a report that was done by the Senate of Canada, believe it or not, Madam Speaker. The Senate of Canada did a major report in 1999 across Canada, looking into the sustainability of forest and looking into the issues that were at large because of concerns about the diminishing forest resources, the boreal rainforest, I think they called it, sort of comparing it to the Amazon rainforest and the importance to the ecology and the importance to the economy. They came up with a number of suggestions that would, in fact, show that there was not enough use being made of our forests, and in fact we could actually produce much more economically from our forests, at the same time as allowing more users to have access to it for different purposes, whether it be for firewood cutting, recreational use, saw logs, or pulp and paper, by looking at the forest as two or three different kinds of components: an intensively managed forest for part of the forest resource; a multi-use forest for another part; and another part of the forest that you would keep in perpetuity in its pristine state. I certainly, at the time and in the past, have talked about some examples of places that might be good candidates for that like the Main River with its 7,000 year-old untouched forest that needs to be protected in a particular way.

We do have very important and significant forest resources in this Province. It is very important that we have a proper consensus on how they be developed because we do not want a situation where many people feel that all of the resources are under the control of two or three major operators, and that the public does not have the right kind of access to forest resources.

Having said all of that, Mr. Speaker, I think the minister has given a lot of consideration to this scheme of regulation, has consulted the stakeholders, and I certainly take him at his word that he has achieved a consensus with the lumber producers and with others. I think the concern here still has to be what is going to happen to this power. I mentioned to the minister when we had a conversation earlier, somebody gave me a draft, whether it was real or not I do not know, but I saw a draft document a few years ago which was a proposed agreement between a major paper company and the government, whereby the major paper company was to be given a right of first refusal for every stick of wood in Labrador. That was under discussion. Somebody from the Lumbers Producers Association gave it to me and said: Look what is going on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: It was not by the current government and I do not know who negotiated this, or whether it was real or what authority they had. It is the kind of thing that can go on behind closed doors with a lot of power being given to a government.

We are giving the Lieutenant-Governor in Council a lot of power here. This obviously places a lot of faith in what they are intending to do. This is why I ask whether there are any kind of policy constraints or documents that the public can go to and say, this is the power that is being given, this is the government's plan for exercise of that power, here is how we intend to ensure that the - other than the minister's speech in the House today - here is how we intend to exercise this power to ensure these principles of community sustainability, of forest sustainability and of a proper flow of timber and other parts of the forest, timber and fibre resources, chips and all this takes place, so that we do not have monopoly, so we do not have bullying going on because of someone's economic might or power and that we have a fair opportunity for people to, not just the big paper companies - and I am not saying that I have anything against the big paper companies but they have had a fairly strong monopoly position in the past. They control the price of wood chips. They control the price of pulp wood. There were always complaints that they pay more in Quebec for pulp wood than they were paying in Newfoundland and Labrador because they had a monopoly here.

So, there are a lot of issues that have been raised over time, and I hope that the government's plan under this legislative power now being given to them, is going to be used in a way that is transparent and that the public and the people who are players in this industry know what the rules are and that it is not just a matter of who has the biggest lobbying effort with the minister, or with the Cabinet for that matter, but that there are actually a set of rules and principles that are being followed that they can work their way around.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I support the legislation in principle at second reading. I look forward to the minister's comments on the remarks of myself and the Member for Bay of Islands.

MADAM SPEAKER (Osborne): The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources, and Government House Leader.

If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

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

I am first going to respond to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi's commentary because many of the points that he has raised are legitimate, bonafide and speak to the future and health and welfare of the industry.

I want to speak to his view, first of all, on: What are the rules, policies, procedures et cetera that will be in play in terms of a framework that would ensure that there are no behind the scenes sort of stuff going on, that someone can come in and get these exchange agreements? That does not happen, and I will explain why.

The division of forestry, within the Department of Natural Resources, is mandated legislatively to manage every value set within the industry: Pine marten habitat reserve; areas alienated or areas set aside for protected areas; tourism operations; outfitting associations; view scapes along communities; watershed areas; buffer zones; potential caribou mitigation areas; areas within national parks, whether it be in Labrador. How do we manage all of those value sets but at the same time creating an industry that allows for people to live and survive? The process by which we do that is extremely open, I submit to the member. For example, an order for a forestry plan in which operators exist.

Now, let's take a particular district. Let's take the district where - let's take an area in Central Newfoundland, say, District 8. In that area, the forestry planning process begins with a series of meetings; open, public meetings. Here is who are involved in those meetings: NGOs or non-governmental organizations. It could be the Sierra Club of Canada or their representatives. It could be individual permit holders, somebody who would have 300 cubic metres up to somebody who would have, say, 3,000 cubic metres.

At those meetings, as well, would be representatives from the pulp and paper industry, municipalities, rural economic development groups, or like the Emerald Zone, for example, in terms of the industries that play a big part in their development. These municipalities, in terms of leadership, in trying to mitigate, making sure that the environment is protected, the Department of Environment and Conservation, officials from the Department of Forestry. It takes about eighteen months to get to a proposed operating plan. That is based upon science and the available inventory analysis conducted through the Department of Forestry, provided up-front publicly to everybody, so everyone can see what is and what isn't. Now, there were some questions raised about that aspect with me from operators and some of the districts had trouble but we have committed to a process in those areas that we had to reduce the fibre supply to share any and all information with operators out there so they can see upon the basis which we made that decision.

So, involved in that process, then, are the integrated sawmill industry, pulp and paper industry, public -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, absolutely. That is what I was getting to. In terms of who has access to the fibre already, number one. So people know.

On Crown land in District 4 or District 5, operator A operates here, has a permit for X, and that permit from X, some of that may involve exchange agreements that currently exist, and it is all open. It is all out there. From our point of view, in trying to look at how we get access or more management of fibre that we do not have, that would occur exclusively on Abitibi grounds or Kruger's leased land or whatever. So it is a very public exercise, and one that takes a significant amount of time. We are not talking weeks. We are talking in excess of twelve to eighteen, and sometimes up to twenty-four months. So, it is a very open process that is dealt with here.

The other point I think that you made in terms of who determines prices; it is not determined necessarily by government the price you pay for these agreements, nor should it be. The market plays a big role in what is affordable and what is not affordable and how that can be done, but when we get into the clause-by-clause debate I can answer that more specifically. I will be able to do that because I think it is important to be able to do so.

The question that you raised specifically on section 27.1, Cutting permits validated. It is an interesting question that you raised. One that I had not asked, but one on the surface, on the face of it I guess, with respect to - and I will read it, as you did, just for the context of the debate and the back and forth today. It says, "Where, before the coming into force of this section, the minister or a forestry official issued a cutting permit under this Act and a term or condition of the cutting permit specified that timber cut under the permit be offered for sale as directed by the minister or the forestry official, that term or condition and cutting permit shall be considered to have been validly issued under this Act."

Now, based upon what I see, that would confirm all of our existing permits just to bring into force and effect in this act. However, you raised an interesting question, and one that I don't have an answer to, but one I intend to get an answer to because if in some way, shape or form this particular clause could be used, either directly or indirectly, to get around the issue - and I want to deal with unionized and non-unionized supply because it is extremely important that we not get involved in that, as government, and not set up a set of circumstances by where collective agreements could be compromised. That is not the intent, nor will it happen.

If this section has any influence over a potential current court action, then when we get back after supper I will have the answer to that. If we move into committee I would want to be able to give the member the assurance, and through the member, those who have raised the notion that this could be a difficult situation. So, I acknowledge the importance of the question and I acknowledge how important it is to get the answer before we move on with the second stage of this bill because it is extremely important.

With respect to the whole notion that these timber sale agreements - because we have to be careful, I guess, with respect to not trying to compromise a workforce that currently exists. You would not want to set up a situation, for example, where paper companies could systematically eliminate a unionized workforce by moving all of their timber, in terms of sawlogs for chips, and reduce their cost at the expense of workers. That is not where this is supposed to be, or will go. I can provide assurance to the member now, and will provide more as we get into Committee debate, that the timber sale agreements entered into are to ensure not to interfere with that, not to interfere with a unionized logging force, but are meant, in fact, to look at ways and means to do exchanges that do not minimize or provide an opportunity for companies, either directly or indirectly, to eliminate a unionized workforce.

I want to provide that assurance, as I have to the CEP locals as well. In view of the fact that you have raised the question, it is important to acknowledge the legitimacy of the question, first of all, because it is a legitimate question, and to provide as much assurance, not just from my perspective but as we go through the Committee and the stage-by-stage debate in Committee on this important piece of legislation, that we are able to do so.

Generally speaking, I take from the member's comments that he supports in principle the spirit and intent of the legislation. There are some clauses that clarification may be needed, and I will endeavour to have that once we get into the Committee stage of the debate, clause-by-clause debate.

With respect to my other colleague, the Member for the Bay of Islands, the critic for the Opposition on forestry, I appreciate the comments and his participation in the debate on this. He has asked some questions as well, I think, that deserve some answers. He has been asked by those in the industry: Do these agreements allow for the availability of stockpiling, so that there could only be four, six or seven weeks of reduced work weeks? The converse is true. The opposite would happen with these agreements.

Many of the operations that we are talking about operate year-round, particularly on the integrated sawmill side, forty-eight, fifty-two weeks a year. These agreements allow for the continuity of supply, the consistency of supply, so that as much - I guess the most utilization of work possible is extracted from these agreements. These agreements are not designed - it is not a feature of these timber sale agreements, or permits, they are not set up onto itself to collapse the amount of work. It is meant to steady out the supply of work, create more work, and I think any independent, unbiased analysis of what these agreements have done would speak for itself, that is exactly what is accomplished.

I wanted to provide the Member for the Bay of Islands and the forestry critic with the assurance that the question that was asked of him to ask and bring to this debate, that will not happen. The converse of that situation is true.

I think the other question he asked - again he talked about the importance of the industry on the Northern Peninsula and he used that as an illustration of what we did this year. I think he said that, if I was in the minister's shoes, I would have done exactly the same thing but we do not need to get ourselves into those situations on a year-over-year basis; we need a longer term solution.

I agree with him, and I share his view of that. On the basis of that, that is one of the reasons why, immediately following the closure of the House, a committee will be reviewing the forestry legislation, holding public consultations across the Province dealing with the industry, the act as it currently exists - a solid, sound, sober look at government's current programming. For example, that committee will be looking at, for the purpose of getting to longer term sustainable programs within the department and the industry, to have a good, healthy look at itself. For example, our current insect program has done extremely well over the last number of years to the point where we are not losing much forest or fiber as a result of it. To give you an example of how dangerous and how important it is for the insect program to be continued, in 1979-1980, for two seasons, the government of the day chose not to participate in a forest insect control program. Do you know we lost the equivalent, because we did not - the hemlock looper -because we did not participate in a spray program for those two seasons, we lost the equivalent, in Western Newfoundland, of a twenty-year wood supply for the mill in Stephenville, because for two years back to back we did not participate in a spray program on the hemlock looper. I think it was hemlock looper, or it could have been the spruce budworm, one of those. It was an insect, whatever the insect was. We did not participate. We just opted out for two seasons and, as a result, we lost the amount of fiber that would have been the equivalent of a twenty-year wood supply for the mill in Stephenville.

That is how important the spray programs are. We participate with the industry on them. We keep them in check, and they are narrowed down now, but it is important to be aggressive. The officials within the department of forestry don't do a good enough job of beating their own chest, in my view, but I will beat it for them here this afternoon. I mean, the science-based approach, whether it be on inventory analysis, whether it be on silviculture, whether it be on the spray program, from the director, Gerald Fleming, on down, and Ivan Downton and the rest of the senior executive, Len Moores is the current acting CEO, all of the people involved in forestry programs, I do want to provide the public with the assurance and the knowledge that I have gained as the minister over the last two years, and the confidence that I have in that division's ability. It is quite remarkable, the science-based approach that they have, and the management, science-based management, of our ecosystem, a multi-faceted management system. They do not just think about forestry. I mean, they are a multi-faceted eco-management system, bio-diversity involved in managing the industry from many value sets. So, I do want to provide an accolade to the staff within the division who have systematically brought the notions forward, cultivated the industry, grown it to where it is, but I want to get back to the review in terms of talking about how science-based it is.

We may ask ourselves, and the public may ask us, through this pretty broad review which the Newfoundland and Labrador Lumber Producers Association are participating in, in defining the Terms of Reference. You know, unionized workers will have their representatives involved in this. It is an industry-wide departmental-led initiative, but we may ask ourselves: You know, are we spending enough, for example, on our roads budget, forestry roads budget? Can we be doing more? The relationships we have on silviculture with the larger companies, should we be taking up a bigger share, or should the companies be taking up a bigger share, in investing? People need to ask the question: How is the strength of the Canadian dollar impacting in their industry? Significantly. Significantly. We need to come to terms with that. How do we view power purchase agreements as it relates to the pulp and paper industry? People need to question that. You know, do we need to tie it to milling and logging operations? My view is yes, and, I think, that would be everyone's view, but my point is, I guess, through this review, it will provide for a forum for a healthy debate about current programming, the current state of the industry, with an operational plan going forward.

To the Member for Bay of Islands' commentary about, what we did on the Northern Peninsula he would have done but we need a longer term view, I concur with that, and I think we have put in place a process by where we will be able to achieve a longer term view.

With that, Madam Speaker, I know we have a few other things to do before we adjourn for the supper break, but I want to thank members opposite who participated in the second reading of Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act, and were very knowledgeable. I think both members who participated, obviously, are knowledgeable of the industry.

I thank those who participated, and look forward to moving on to the Committee stage of this debate.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to move second reading of Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act. (Bill15)

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Later today.

MADAM SPEAKER: Later today.

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

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Order 10, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act. (Bill 28)

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

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

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased today to introduce for debate Bill 28, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act. This legislation is necessary to give effect to the Labrador Inuit Framework Taxation Agreement. That is the whole purpose behind the legislation. That agreement, of course, is required under the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act.

As the House will recall, on December 1, last year, 2005, the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement came into effect. Madam Speaker, the Inuit of Labrador waited, I guess, almost thirty years for that historic moment to arrive and it certainly marked the beginning, as we said at the time, of a new era in Labrador, especially as it relates to the Inuit of Labrador.

The agreement, Madam Speaker, as it stands, already provides for Inuit community governments to make laws in relation to direct taxation of the Inuit people themselves, in the same manner as a municipality would be able to do under current municipal legislation. However, the Inuit community governments also require the necessary authority to impose municipal-like taxation on people other than Inuit, because there are people obviously, other than Inuit, who live in some of the Inuit communities, and legislative authority is required for the Nunatsiavut government to be able to make laws regarding taxation for those people.

The agreement provides for these individuals to vote for, Madam Speaker, and be represented on the Inuit community councils. This new legislation will give those governments, the municipal community councils, that authority. In that sense, the legislation is housekeeping. We have already passed the land claims legislation, so this amendment therefore is necessary for us to move forward.

Madam Speaker, the bill provides for the Inuit community governments to exercise taxation powers over person other than Inuit, in the same manner as a municipality would under municipal legislation anywhere else in the Province. The amendment outlined in the bill is necessary, as I said, as the Inuit move forward to face the challenges and the opportunities that await them.

The Labrador Inuit, I should say, Madam Speaker, for the benefit of the House, support this amendment and the agreement has already been signed off on by the Nunatsiavut government.

Madam Speaker, the government was pleased to be a party to the implementation of the Land Claims Agreement. I am pleased, therefore, to bring forward this legislation in order to make the appropriate amendments for taxation purposes pursuant to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement

In that context, Madam Speaker, I so move second reading.

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise today to speak to the bill. As the minister said, the Labrador Inuit Association waited close to thirty years to finalize their land claims deal.

Madam Speaker, the Nunatsiavut government has now appointed several Cabinet ministers. They have sought the first week in October to hold their first ever general election. It is going to be a very exciting time for the Inuit on the North Coast of Labrador.

Madam Speaker, I was proud to be a part of a government, particularly the previous Premier, that crafted the deal with the Labrador Inuit and implemented so much of the agreement. Also, I want to thank the present Premier and his government for finalizing the few things that were left to be done, and certainly to implement the lands claims itself. I want to thank the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs for the work that he has done in bringing the deal about, ironing out the final details. I was just going to say I want to thank the former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, but that would be me, so I will not do that, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, no doubt the lands claims deal is a tremendous asset to the Inuit people. I am sure that over the years there will be more amendments that the Labrador Inuit Association will probably bring to the government asking for their cooperation.

I am certain, Madam Speaker, that we, on this side of the House, fully support this bill. We thank the minister for bringing it forward. Minister, all members of the Liberal Caucus have given me their assurance that we are ready to put this bill through.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I just want to say a few words on Bill 28. We, in the NDP Caucus, certainly support Bill 28, which gives effect to the taxation agreement.

I am assuming, and maybe the minister can clarify this when he speaks, this Labrador Inuit Framework Taxation Agreement is an agreement recently penned between the government and the Labrador Inuit Government of Nunatsiavut. That is certainly something, the details of which I am not familiar with, but we are ratifying it here. Perhaps the minister is going to table it at some point so we know what is being ratified. Given the fact that there are no objections coming from anybody in terms of the agreement that has been made between this government and the Nunatsiavut Government - I am sure if there were problems with it from the Nunatsiavut Government we would have heard about it. I am assuming that there is peace and harmony between the two respective governments. On that basis, I am certainly not going to list any objections here.

Obviously, the purpose of the agreement is to ensure that the Nunatsiavut Government have their own taxation powers within the existing Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement and the powers that are granted under that Constitutional document. Still, there are, obviously, overlapping issues that relate to provincial government taxation. I would certainly be interested in seeing what the whole agreement looks like.

In this particular instance, making sure that municipal-like taxes - and they are spelled out as being taxes that would be applied or could be applied if it were a municipality under the Municipalities Act - that similar taxes can be imposed not just on members of the Labrador Inuit Association or the Inuit people residing in Inuit communities but also on non-Inuit members, that seems very reasonable, Madam Speaker. Otherwise, you would have people who might be considered free riders with no power to tax people outside of this group, and this is a recognition that obviously there is going to be some overlap.

I have no hesitation in supporting that, Madam Speaker, and I am pleased to see that things are moving forward with respect to the implementation of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement and the formation of the new government. It was a great disappointment, I think, to me, Madam Speaker, and I know to many members who were unable to actually get to Nain when we attempted to be there for the opening session of the Labrador Inuit Assembly. We got as far as Goose Bay. I know the minister spoke through closed circuit television and there was a lot of people in Happy Valley-Goose Bay who wanted to be there, members of the Inuit community who were hoping to be there for that. I know the Member for Torngat Mountains was also in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and unable, as a result of weather conditions, to get there for that.

Since the previous member who was speaking was too polite to thank the previous minister, I guess it falls to me to thank him as the previous Minister for Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs for his role in advancing the process that took some thirty years, as mentioned by the Deputy Premier and Minister for Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs. I think it was a great occasion, and it was a great moment for me to be in this House of Assembly, Madam Speaker, during the passage of the historic legislation that created the district and Government of Nunatsiavut.

This is a part of that process that I think we are all very supportive of. I certainly would like to see this see speedy passage through the House of Assembly. I look forward to the formation of the first public election, I think, of the new Nunatsiavut government occurring in the fall. I look forward to seeing who steps forward. Maybe the previous member might play a role in this new government. Who knows, Madam Speaker. I am sure it would be a great honour for anyone of Inuit to play a role in that government. You know, a man with his experience in government here in Newfoundland and Labrador I am sure would have something to offer to that government. I look forward to hearing whether or not the member would want to play that kind of intimate role in the Nunatsiavut government when it comes about.

All of us in this House have had the great fortune of being able to participate in this historic process, and I certainly want to support here today this amendment seeking the implementation of an important part of the new regime that will be put into place fully come October.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

Does the Member for Torngat Mountains have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. ANDERSEN: Madam Speaker, just one point of interest that I feel I should mention, and it was partially raised by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. How does the Nunatsiavut Government feel? I have talked to ministers of the government and they are in full favour of this amendment.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs, if the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I want to thank colleagues on the opposite side of the House for their support for this particular amendment to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act. The main points of the Act are simply to incorporate the Inuit Framework Taxation Agreement, and I have no difficulty in providing a copy of that for members' consideration, of course, assuming that the Nunatsiavut Government and the Government of Canada would have no difficulty with it, because it is tripartite, as practically everything is under the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Act. Practically everything under that Act operates in a tripartite fashion and would require, at least, consultation before doing that.

Before I finish, Madam Speaker, I certainly would like to thank our colleague for Torngat Mountains for the efforts that he put in when he was a minister, and since as a Member of the Legislature, into ensuring that all of us, I think, whether in government or wherever we sit in the House, had an understanding and appreciation of what this Land Claims Agreement meant to the Inuit of Labrador. He has done a tremendous job at that over the years, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: If he should not be here later on in the fall for us to thank him for his efforts, maybe we will be able to do it through a visitation with the Nunatsiavut Legislature or something of that nature. Whatever the hon. gentleman decides to do, I am sure he will continue, as he has always done in his public career, to put the interests of the people that he represents first. He has done a tremendous job at that in this House over the years.

With that, I am pleased to move second reading.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

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

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Later Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Later.

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

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move Order 8. I think there is time before the supper break for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce second reading of a bill, An Act Respecting The Enforcement Of Support Orders. (Bill 27)

MADAM SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 27 be now read a second time.

Motion, second read of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Enforcement Of Support Orders." (Bill 27)

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

It is indeed a privilege and an honour for me to stand here today to introduce second reading of Bill 27 which is entitled, An Act Respecting The Enforcement Of Support Orders.

If you look at the explanatory note of this legislation, the bill would revise the law with respect to the enforcement of support orders.

Madam Speaker, many people do not know that when you receive an order in a court that someone has to pay you money that does not mean you are going to get the money. While you have the order, the order amounts to a piece of paper. It is necessary for the person who is considered as the creditor under the order to collect, to go through a method of enforcement of the order. That is not the easiest thing that one can do. You have to find out information as to where the creditor has assets, you have to find information as where the creditor's income sources are, and you have to utilize the resources of the Judgement Enforcement Agency in order to help gather that information, do a lot of detective work and then use the Judgement Enforcement Agency and the Office of the High Sheriff in order to enforce your judgement, which would include things like garnishing or attaching someone's salary, garnishing someone's bank account at a financial institution, seizing land and having the land sold off in order to pay your order or judgement, or having the Sheriff's Office or the Judgement Enforcement Office seize the personal properties, such as RSPs and vehicles and other personal property, so that these items can be sold and then the money can be used to satisfy your judgement or your order. This can cause a lot of difficulty for people who do not have the resources to enforce their order. This would include families, women and children who receive orders from the courts of Newfoundland, including the Unified Family Court, known as spousal support orders and child support orders.

In July of 1988, the House of Assembly passed four pieces of legislation under the leadership of the hon. Lynn Verge, who was Minister of Justice and Attorney General at the time. The purpose of the legislation was to dramatically reform and to revise the legislative framework for private family law in Newfoundland and Labrador. There was a Family Law Act. There was a Children's Law Act. There was a Reciprocal Enforcement Of Support Orders Act and there was a Support Orders Enforcement Act, which is the law that we are revising here today. That legislation established an agency known as the Support Enforcement Agency, which has been situated in Corner Brook since its first inception, with staff servicing the entire Province. It is a publicly funded program to help families enforce child support and spousal support orders on behalf of parties in whose favour these orders have, in fact, been made. The legislation requires that every support order made after the May 1 in 1989, the day when the legislation first came into effect, is to be registered with the agency and to be enforced by the agency, unless the creditor chose to opt out of the system and enforce their order themselves. Of course, finding the information, enforcing the order takes a lot of time, takes a lot of money and this agency helps families and children to avoid that expense in enforcing their court orders.

The agency monitors payment through a computer system and should default occur at any time, it will take enforcement proceedings without the necessity of intervention by the person to whom the money is owed, namely the creditor. Since the legislation was introduced, the Support Enforcement Agency has collected over $200 million on behalf of creditors. In 2005, the agency collected $22.5 million.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, fortunately, most judgement debtors who are required to pay support under a support order, voluntarily make their payments. There is no doubt that the introduction of this legislation in the late 1980s has been very beneficial and effective for those creditors who receive support orders from the courts and, subsequently, support payments through Tte Support Enforcement Agency.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, there are a number of creditors who do not pay their support obligations. They do not pay those support obligations willingly. The Support Enforcement Agency is then required to take legal against these individuals. Some of the enforcement measures contained in the current legislation include: garnishment of wages, the filing of statements of finances and debt or summons requiring a person to attend a court hearing.

Mr. Speaker, the list of collection actions is set out on the Web site of the Support Enforcement Agency. This includes wage garnishments, of wages that are in arrears. It includes the garnishment of monies in a bank account. It includes federal garnishments, under an agreement with the federal Justice Department. The Support Enforcement Agency can attach funds that are payable to debtors from federal sources, such as: Income Tax refunds, from GST and HST rebates, the Canada Pension Plan Training Allowances and Employment Insurance. The Support Enforcement Agency can attach 100 per cent of Income Tax and GST rebates. There is also federal licence deniable that can be used to collect support orders. Under an agreement with the federal Justice Department, the Support Enforcement Agency can restrict the issuing of passports, federal licences and permits. The agency can cause an existing passport or a federal licence to be revoked.

Mr. Speaker, in addition, the agency can register with the Sheriff; can establish a lien against real property. It can have the Sheriff seize and sell the debtors assets, such as vehicles, inventory, bonds, stocks RRSPs et cetera, through the High Sheriff. The assets that are seized are then, of course, sold to settle the debtors affairs. There is also a default hearing, and through a default summons against a debtor, the debtor is required to appear in court and to give evidence of why they have not compiled with the support obligations. The debtor is required to give information which can be used by the Support Enforcement Agency to collect the funds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, for those who can pay but do not, the current legislation sets out a series of new enforcement options in order to promote greater compliance. The changes to the legislation had been developed over the past number of years in light of difficulties that had been encountered in the enforcement of support orders throughout the country, and then in light of changes and improvements in legislation that have happened in other provinces and territories.

The bill before you today, Mr. Speaker, the Support Orders Enforcement Act of 2006, is a strong piece of legislation which is vital for the children and families of this Province. It is a leading piece of legislation which incorporates tough enforcement mechanisms for the benefit of our children and for the benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador families. It has been built from a review of the strictest enforcement provisions across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I will just highlight for the members here, some of the new sections and the new enforcement measures that are contained in the bill. Section 11 sets out an expanded list of information which the director can seek from a person, from a corporation or a public body relating to a debtor. This expanded list will provide the director with greater enforcement opportunities because of the additional information which he will receive with respect to the debtor. If the debtor refuses to disclose the information, the director can apply to the court for an order ordering the debtor to disclose the information.

Under section 14, stays of enforcement, which are sought by debtors, would be restricted to a specific time frame and not be open-ended. The new measure will stop this.

Section 20 is a section which will provide that an employer who receives a notice of garnishment with respect to an employee, cannot dismiss or suspend or lay off or penalize, discipline or discriminate against the employee because of the receipt of a notice of garnishment. It would also give an employee the right to make an application against an employer seeking reinstatement and an award of damages.

Mr. Speaker, section 28 deals with joint bank accounts. This provision will allow the director to issue a notice of garnishment to a financial institution and will attach 50 per cent of the money in the account and require that the financial institution forward 50 per cent of the money in the account to the director. This is to correct a present situation where if there is a notice of garnishment sent to a financial institution, if the financial institution should notify the other joint holders of the account or the other co-owners of the account, they could come in and clean the account out and no money will then go to the director to enforce the support order for the benefit of the children or for the benefit of the family. This new change will prevent this by ensuring that at least 50 per cent of the funds, in fact, goes to the director in accordance with the notice of garnishment.

Naturally, the institution will be required to notify the director, and a co-owner would have the right to make an application to the court in order to have the court determine who owns what, if, in fact, a co-owner made a claim to the monies that have been sent to the director. Sections 39 to 44 allow the director to attach a pension entitlement.

Sections 45 to 50 deal with registered pension plans, such as registered retirement income funds and registered retirement savings plans, and a similar process will be used in attaching these funds as is used in attaching pension entitlement. Under the current legislation, pension plans or the income coming from pension plans can, in fact, be attached, but under this new legislation, pension entitlements which have been referred to as idle pensions - it could be someone who has earned a pension in a particular area and then they get transferred to a different job, the pension just sits there - this will allow the director to go and to attach and liquidate this pension. All pensions will now be covered.

Section 51 deals with a matter where the debtor is the sole shareholder of a corporation. The intention of this section, and this is a new section, is that such a corporation with a debtor as the sole owner will now become jointly and severally liable with a debtor for payments required under a support order if the debtor is in what is referred to in the legislation as persistent arrears - persistent arrears are defined in the definition section of the legislation - and if the director has served the corporation with a notice of the garnishment. The corporation becomes jointly and severally liable and continues to be liable as long as the debtor continues to be liable for payments required under a support order. Measures that can be taken against the debtor may also be taken against the corporation. So, now there will not be an opportunity for the debtor to be able to say that I do not own that property, my company owns it. Those assets held by the company will be available to help meet the support order and help the family and help the children.

Section 52 deals with a corporation which is controlled by a debtor, or a debtor and the immediate family members of the debtor. In this situation, the director would be required to apply to the court for an order declaring that the corporation is jointly and severally liable with a debtor if the debtor is in persistent arrears and if the corporation has been served with a notice of garnishment.

Another new section is section 53, which deals with the suspension of a person's driver's licence. A similar provision is contained in most other jurisdictions across the country. It allows the Director of the Support Enforcement Agency to notify the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend or cancel the driver's licence of a debtor if certain steps have been taken. Now, the director is required to notify the debtor and give the debtor a direction, a thirty-day direction, or a thirty-day notice, I should say, that a direction will be given to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend or to cancel the driver's licence unless the debtor makes an arrangement satisfactory to the director within the thirty-day period.

We are advised by directors of support agencies in other provinces that having the power to do this is a great inducement to having debtors who owe money under support orders, who are in arrears, to come forward and pay the amounts owing.

I would point out that there is protection here for the debtor. There are a number of preconditions that have to be met. There has to be persistent arrears, and persistent arrears is defined in the legislation. I am sorry, not in the legislation but in fact in the regulations, and these will be arrears that are more than, where three months' payments have been met and the amount is over $1,000. The director, before cancelling or directing the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend or cancel a licence, has to ensure that the debtor has an opportunity to make alternate arrangements, and the director has to ensure that he has exhausted all other reasonable enforcement mechanisms first, prior to taking the severe motion of suspending or cancelling a driver's licence.

Mr. Speaker, sections 54 and 55 will similarly deal with a suspension or cancellation of hunting licences issued to a debtor under the Wild Life Act. Once again, the director will be entitled to request that the minister responsible for that act suspend or cancel the debtor's licence if certain conditions, and the same conditions as under driver's licences, were, in fact, in effect. There would be a notice to the debtor. The debtor would be entitled to apply to the court for an order revoking the suspension or cancellation. If the court is satisfied that the debtor is not in persistent arrears then the court can make an order revoking the suspension or cancellation of the debtor's licence. Mr. Speaker, Ontario and Alberta have implemented this new enforcement measure in the last two years and the director would be entitled to use this enforcement measure in a manner similar to the use of driver's licence suspension or cancellation which I mentioned earlier.

Mr. Speaker, section 56 is a new section that will enable the director to garnish, from the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, the lottery winnings of a debtor in arrears where those winnings are valued at $1,000 or more. A lottery prize under this provision will apply to a sum of money or goods.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. MARSHALL: The jurisdictions of Ontario and Manitoba have implemented some similar provisions.

Another new section is section 65 which will eliminate a limitation period on the enforcement of arrears. There will no longer be a limitation period on the enforcement of arrear payments under a support order. This would allow the director to collect arrears beyond the current ten-year contract. A debtor's obligation to pay child support, Mr. Speaker, should not be ended by a limitation period.

Mr. Speaker, our government believes strongly that this improved legislation, with additional enforcement measures, with new teeth, will result in more effective and improved enforcement procedures and ultimately earn greater benefits for the children and families of our Province. We have consulted with other government departments regarding this legislation. Our Support Enforcement Agency and their staff have received a lot of comments from clients with respect to suggestions for change. The staff has consulted with the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, who in turn have consulted with other women's groups regarding the changes and improvements that they face. I am very pleased to say that the Advisory Council has endorsed the effort which this government is making to ensure that the women and children of this Province gain the benefits to which they are entitled through this legislation. The department, of course, has reviewed similar legislation in other jurisdictions and we are taking what we perceive to be the best enforcement mechanisms from those other provinces.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the bill is intended to build on the successes which The Support Enforcement Agency has had in the past and authorize new enforcement mechanisms that we believe will result increased collection efforts against debtors and on behalf of families.

The draft bill contains many provisions from the current legislation and it adds new enforcement mechanisms. These new mechanisms are set out in sections 39 to 56. Essentially, the bill gives the Support Enforcement Agency additional tools to collect court ordered support payments on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador children and families. Enforcing court orders for financial support is part of this government's commitment to ensuring that our children are given every opportunity to succeed. We are looking for solutions to the challenges we face in ensuring the children and families in our Province receive the support to which they are legally entitled.

Our government is committed to ensuring the stronger enforcement measures contained in the new legislation will help put more money in the hands of parents and children who receive family support.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Under Standing Order 9, if at 5 o'clock in the afternoon the business of the House is not concluded, the Speaker shall leave the Chair until 7 o'clock. Accordingly, this House is in recess until 7 o'clock this evening.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Continuing debate at second reading on Bill 27, An Act Respecting The Enforcement Of Support Orders.

MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: I understand there is some agreement, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Justice would introduce that legislation, and since we only had copies of today, that further debate on that particular bill would be passed on until next week or until next sitting of the House. I do not think we are anticipating any further speakers this evening, and I guess I will leave it to the Government House Leader to call something else.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will look for direction from the political leaders.

The Chair recognizes the Government House Leader.

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

I am glad to provide the direction that you are seeking on behalf of everybody. The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi certainly reflects the agreement between all parties and, in view of that, what I would like to do now, Mr. Speaker, is move the House into Committee of the Whole to debate matters related to legislation that we have discussed here this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House now resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider matters which have passed second reading earlier in the day.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CHAIR (Mr. Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I want to move to Committee stage debate on - it is actually Order 3 on the Order Paper - Committee of the Whole debate, An Act To Amend The Securities Act, Bill 10.

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

The hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I had indicated, the last time this was called in Committee, that I had considered an amendment because of my concern that what we were doing here was actually delegating legislative authority to a public servant. I had legal concerns about that. I have since been persuaded by the cogent arguments of the Legislative Counsel that this, in fact, is not a significant constitutional or legal impediment, and the only issue is really one of policy. Under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, given that this legislation is one of regulation of securities, where there is a cooperative arrangement between this Province and other jurisdictions in Canada so that we can have some uniformity and harmonization of rules with respect to securities rules, that from a policy perspective this is one of those circumstances where we are not delegating significant law making powers but rather, in fact, providing for an opportunity for this government's policy objective of supporting a uniform code, so a uniform set of rules for securities across the country can be achieved.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I notified the minister earlier today that I am withdrawing my proposal to seek an amendment to the legislation and will support the legislation as it now stands.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1. Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Securities Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Securities Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Those against?

Bill 10 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move to Committee stage debate on Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Child, Youth And Family Services Act.

CHAIR: Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Child, Youth And Family Services Act.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1. Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Child, Youth and Family Services Act carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 18 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Move to Committee stage debate on Bill 15, An Act to Amend The Forestry Act.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act.

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 5.

CHAIR: Clauses 1 to 5. Shall Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive carry?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

One of the, I guess, features of the debate that occurred earlier: The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi asked a question which I felt I knew the answer to, but I was not sure. I felt that it was a legitimate question that deserved a response, and it was dealing with - and he can correct me if I am wrong - Section 4.27.1. The issue he had - I will read it just for the record again for the sake of the debate this evening. It says, "Where, before the coming into force of this section, the minister or a forestry official issued a cutting permit under this Act and a term or condition of the cutting permit specified that timber cut under the permit be first offered for sale as directed by the minister or the forestry official, that term or condition and cutting permit shall be considered to have been validly issued under this Act."

Now the purpose of that section, as I had thought it was, was to take all current existing permits to ensure that if that clause, in bringing forward the legislation, were to pass it would be valid under the current or new regime of the legislation. The question that the member asked was: Right now there is an arbitration case outstanding in Central Newfoundland between the CEP locals and an operator - we will leave it at that for the moment - and by passing this legislation would that section of the Act have any influence on the outcome of that arbitration?

The Department of Justice and officials within the Department of Forestry have assured me, no, that is not the case, that this would have absolutely no influence on the outcome of the arbitrator's decision. Should, in fact, the arbitrator rule in favour of the local, then the company involved would have to give thirty days notice to remove itself from the transfer agreement. I guess I want to assure the member and those who were concerned enough to phone him and talk to him to have that question answered, that the passing of this legislation will in no way, either directly or indirectly, influence or have any influence on the outcome of that arbitration. Again, it is just to take any permits that have been issued for this season and to ensure that they comply with the amendments that we are about to make to the Forestry Act.

With that, I will leave it up to the member to make his own commentary on it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank the minister for, first of all, seeking the clarification with respect to that, and also making this clarification here in the House this evening, because it was a concern that was raised to me. I understand, as the minister said, the intention here is to ensure that existing permits that are still in effect for this season and future seasons comply with the Act and are validly existing. I thank him for that clarification and for putting it on the record here this evening.

Having said that, Mr. Chair, I have no further comments at the committee stage with respect to Bill 15.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Shall clauses 1 to 5 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 5 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 5 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Forestry Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 15 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Committee stage debate on Bill 28, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 3 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Those against?

Bill 28 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move Committee stage debate on Bill 9, An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act.

CHAIR: Bill 9, An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act.

CLERK: Clauses 1 and 2.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 and 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Those against?

Clauses 1 to 2 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 and 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Those against?

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Those against?

The title is carried.

On motion title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 9, An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Those against?

Bill 9 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Those against?

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Mr. Hodder): The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bills 9, 28, 15, 18 and10 carried without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to reports Bill 10, 18, 9, 15 and 28 carried without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted.

MR. SPEAKER: Now. When shall the bills be read a third time?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, by leave.

Leave is granted.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Securities Act, Bill 10.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 10, An Act to Amend The Securities Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that bill 10 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Securities Act. (Bill 10)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Securities Act, has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Securities Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 10)

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Child, Youth And Family Services Act, Bill 18.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Child, Youth And Family Services Act, be read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 18 be 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 Child, Youth And Family Services Act, Bill 18.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 18 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 Child, Youth And Family Services Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 18)

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

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

I move third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Occupational Health and Safety Act, Bill 9.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 9, An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act, be read a third time?

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 9 be 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 Occupational Health And Safety Act, Bill 9.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 9, An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act, has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 9)

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

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

I move third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act, Bill 15.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act, now be read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 15 be 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 Forestry Act, Bill 15.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act, has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Forestry Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 15)

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

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

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

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 28 be 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 Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, Bill 28.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 28, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act has now been read a third, and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

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

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

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

I just want to talk to members. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General will be on leave next week on behalf of the government. The agreement that we had with respect to the support order enforcement - he is going to introduce a bill tonight, Bill 25, An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code, then we will conclude debate and, I guess, take that debate back up again on Monday.

With that, I want to move second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code Act, Bill 25. We will pass it on to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 25, An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code." (Bill 25)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Human rights legislation occupies a very significant place of importance among the provincial laws of this Province. Human rights legislation was introduced in this Province with the proclamation of the Newfoundland Human Rights Code on March 3, 1971. This Human Rights Code continues to play a vital role in the Province to this day.

I would suggest that the recognition and the protection of human rights is a hallmark of a civilized and tolerant society. How we, as a society, recognize and respect the dignity and the worth of all persons, without consideration of race, sex, creed or colour, is an indication of how we have advanced in our acceptance of the inherent value and worth of all persons in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, the Human Rights Code shares a number of similarities with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Both pieces of legislation uphold the values of personal rights and freedoms by promoting equality and prohibiting discrimination. The Charter is a federal constitutional legislation, and that was proclaimed into force in law on May 17, 1982. The Charter applies to activities, actions and laws of the provincial and the federal government and ensures that persons are not treated with inequality or face unjustified discrimination due to government action. The Human Rights Code, like the Charter, binds the provincial government and its activities. However, the Code also applies to the activities of individuals and organizations in the private sector and provides persons the right in law to challenge the discriminatory practices they may experience in their private dealings with others.

Mr. Speaker, the Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination and it prohibits harassment on a number of specified grounds, and enables persons to make complaints of discrimination and to have those complaints investigated and addressed by the Human Rights Commission.

The Human Rights Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Association, and a number of such groups, such as senior rights organizations, have lobbied government regarding proposed changes to the Code to increase its consistency with human rights legislation in other jurisdictions throughout this country.

Mr. Speaker, I recently met with representatives of human rights organizations and committed to bringing forward reforms to the Code within a year. I am pleased today to state that this commitment is now fulfilled.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the Code, which are being proposed, constitute the most substantive series of reforms since the present version of the Code first came into force in October, 1988. In particular, the amendments that are introduced today will benefit seniors, they will benefit single parent families and they will benefit persons in receipt of social assistance, with the addition of age, family status and source of income as prohibited grounds of discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, regarding age, government proposes that age be included as a prohibited ground of discrimination to ensure that persons are not subject to harassment or discrimination on the basis of age when engaged in activities such as purchasing services or goods or renting living accommodation. Mr. Speaker, senior organizations will be very pleased to know that it will no longer be permissible in this Province to refuse to provide goods or services, or to rent accommodation to people on the basis of their age.

Mr. Speaker, at present the Code prohibits age discrimination in employment, but such protection is only available to workers between the ages of nineteen and sixty-five. With respect to someone who is sixty-five or older, an employer can refuse or can discriminate against such a person and refuse to employ such a person on the basis that the person is over sixty-five.

Government also proposes the removal of the upper age limit of sixty-five which enables workers nineteen years of age and older to bring complaints of employment discrimination due to age. Such complaints could be defended if actions by employers were taken on the basis of good faith occupational qualification, or as a result of good faith retirement or pension plans. Government proposes, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment respecting age discrimination in employment would come into force one year following the introduction of the remaining Code amendments. This will allow employers, who may be affected by the amendment, the opportunity to review their policies and practices and determine whether changes are necessary so as to accord with the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, government will act to include family status as a prohibited general ground of discrimination, respecting the right to accommodation, services and goods as well as a prohibited ground of discrimination in employment. Family status is to be defined as being in a parent and child relationship including the relationship of a parent and an adopted child. This amendment will prove to be of benefit to parents who may experience difficulty in obtaining accommodation, services, goods or employment as a result of being in a parent and child relationship. This introduction of family status, as a prohibited ground of discrimination, confirms that, unless a good faith reason should exist, no parent in our Province, no single parent in our Province, need face difficulty or discrimination because of a parent and child relationship.

Mr. Speaker, the government shall also include source of income as a prohibited ground of discrimination with source of income being defined as being in receipt of Income Support or social assistance. The Human Rights Commission noted that this amendment would be of particular importance to persons who may be denied rental accommodation solely because they receive social assistance. Government agrees with the Commission's position on this matter. Persons will still be required to have a sufficient amount of income to pay for rent and services but, subject to the ability to pay, persons should not be faced with discrimination just because they happen to receive Income Support. This is a very, very important amendment.

Mr. Speaker, among technical amendments to the Code, I wish to note, in particular, government's proposed amendment respecting the limitation period within which a complaint of discrimination may be made. Presently, there is a limitation period of six months. The Commission has recommended to government that the limitation period be increased from six months to one year, and this will provide persons, who may have been subject to discrimination, further time to assess their situation and to decide whether they should proceed. Government agrees with the Commission and shall extend the limitation for bringing a complaint to one year following a possible contravention of the Code.

Mr. Speaker, the measures proposed by government to introduce additional prohibited grounds of discrimination and to increase the opportunity for persons to bring complaints of discrimination will strengthen the Human Rights Code and will increase it's importance to the residents of our Province.

I am pleased today to have had the opportunity to introduce these amendments. I thank hon. members opposite for the courtesy that allows me to do that and I look forward to the debate that will take place on this very important piece of legislation. I would encourage all members to support it.

I think it was back in 1997 that the Human Rights Association first starting urging government to bring amendments to the Code. Unfortunately governments have not been able to respond until now, and I am very pleased that we are now in a position to finally bring these amendments forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please!

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

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

With that, Mr. Speaker, we will conclude today's activities. I guess the debate on the bill, the Human Rights Code, will begin back in earnest on Monday.

With that, I do now put the adjournment. We will see colleagues on Monday as a result of tomorrow with the House not being open out of respect for the passing of a colleague, a former Minister of the Crown, a former Minister of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teacher's Association, Patricia. With that, we will put the adjournment motion forward.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House will now adjourn until Monday, May 15, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

This House now stands adjourned until Monday, May 15, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

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