MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we welcome thirty-seven students from Botwood, in the District of Exploits. These students represent Botwood Collegiate, the Botwood Boys and Girls Club, and the Botwood Community Youth Network. They are accompanied by their teachers: Darryl Chippett and Darrell Rice, as well as their chaperones: Gloria Evans, Perry Chippett and Susan Hemeon.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for Bonavista South; the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans; the hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale; the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; the hon. the Member for Exploits; and the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Captain John Russell, formerly of Red Cliff, Bonavista Bay, and currently residing at Bonavista, celebrates his 100^th birthday today, December 11.

I have known Captain Johnny for many years; in fact, there is a long-standing history between our families. I am proud to stand in this place today and call Captain John Russell a true friend.

Raised by his great-aunt and uncle following the death of his mother when he was just one week old, Captain Johnny became and remains to this day a dedicated and devoted family member. Along with his wife, Gwen, he raised six children, has seventeen grandchildren and twelve great-grandchildren.

For some years, Captain Johnny owned and sailed his own schooner, prosecuting the Labrador fishery. He was one of the first skippers to own a longliner when they were introduced to the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery in early 1950s. He sailed for many years as Chief Mate on vessels owned by the Crosbie Group of Companies, as well as the vessel Blue Peter owned by the Blue Peter Steamships Limited. In later years, he was captain of Chester Dawe's private yacht, and he and Mr. Dawe remained friends until his death a few years ago.

During the war, Captain Johnny served in the Canadian Navy. He was towing targets for the Navy off St. John's when two ore carriers were torpedoed off Bell Island. Little did he know there were German submarines lurking in the waters all around him.

Mr. Speaker, Captain John Russell is respected by all who know him. He has a fantastic memory, and his marine knowledge is sourced every day, even at the ripe age of 100. He possesses a sense of humour that is enjoyed by all who visit his home.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all member of this House today to join with me in wishing Captain John Russell a happy 100^th birthday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, during this past summer a ceremony was held at the Joe Byrne Memorial Stadium where the Newfoundland and Labrador's Baseball Association welcomed two new inductees, Dale Green and Tom Blackmore from Grand Falls-Windsor, to its Baseball Hall of Fame.

Mr. Speaker, Dale Green began playing baseball at age twelve, and recalls that his love for the game came naturally. He quickly gained a very impressive record during what would become an illustrious career. He has won eleven senior championships; played on eight provincial Senior B championship teams, and played in six Atlantic championships. In 1976, he played in the Canadian National Midget Championship and was the winning pitcher in the semifinals against the host province. He was also named Top Batter in the tournament, which led to a position on the all-star team. He has also played in numerous other championships and has won countless MVP and Top Batter awards.

Tom Blackmore, who now resides in Halifax, began playing baseball in Grand Falls-Windsor at age seventeen, and throughout his career he was a catcher, right fielder, and first baseman. His favourite position was on the side of the plate where it was not unusual for him to bat upwards of 600. One game that stands out was the 1953 All-Newfoundland semifinal against Gander, where he scored five runs to lead his team to victory.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating Dale Green and Tom Blackmore, who have been inducted into the Newfoundland and Labrador Baseball Association Hall of Fame.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to congratulate Courtney Woodford, age fourteen, of Triton on releasing her first CD.

Courtney has been playing the piano and singing since pre-school. She is seen throughout the district singing at events like the Remembrance Day ceremonies, Pilley's Island Tree Lighting Ceremony, and many school functions as well.

Courtney's CD is comprised of easy rock and Christian music. This has been a dream come true for Courtney, and she accredits her achievement to the help and dedication of her music teacher, Mark Walters.

Courtney's CD was recorded at Sweet Waters Studios in Springdale. Devin Robinson produced the CD and was quoted as saying Courtney is a strong singer.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, talented rural Newfoundlanders are making their way in the music industry. I hope this will be the beginning of a long career for Courtney.

I would like my hon. colleagues to join with me in congratulating Courtney Woodford on her first CD.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 congratulate Megan Buffett, a young up-and-coming singer and performer from St. Alban's who was recently awarded the Mary Emerancy Pickard Music Scholarship.

It was just this past May that I rose to recognize her as a recipient of $38,000 in scholarships. The Mary Emerancy Pickard Music Scholarship from Mount Allison University is a prestigious award. It is a first year renewable award valued at $6,000. The music scholarship recognizes academic and performance excellence. It is awarded annually to students studying music. The scholarship was established in memory of Mary Emerancy Pickard, the university's first piano teacher and mother of Dr. Ralph Pickard Bell, graduate and first Chancellor of Mount Allison University.

Mr. Speaker, as a graduate of Bay d'Espoir Academy, Megan looked at a number of music programs and decided that Mount Alliston was best suited for her. She is enrolled in the Bachelor of Music program, majoring in voice and is the sole recipient of this year's award for the incoming class. While singing is her speciality, she also plays several instruments and plans to pursue a career in performing arts.

The daughter of Raymond and Louise Buffett, Megan has been involved in community activities including Girl Guides of Canada, the Royal Canadian Army Cadets, the Community Youth Centre and teaching instruments, voice and directing music.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Ms Megan Buffett on receiving the Mary Emerancy Pickard Scholarship and wish her all the best in her music career.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Newfie Bullets on winning the bronze medal in the 2006 World Broomball Championships, Mixed Division in Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, the mixed broomball team was made up of eleven players from Bishop's Falls, three from Goose Bay and two from Grand Falls-Windsor and represented Newfoundland and Labrador competing against other teams from Canada and countries such as Japan, Italy, and the United States.

Mr. Speaker, after round robin play the team advanced to the quarter final playdowns where they defeated Kingston one to nothing in double overtime, the game had to be decided in a shoot out, which advanced the team to the semi-finals.

They lost the semi-finals and had to compete against Minnesota for the bronze medal, in that final medal competition they defeated Minnesota in a final score of 4 to 1.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating our mixed broomball team on winning the bronze medal at the world championships.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Friday, December 1, I was very pleased to attend the opening of the long awaited Kiddy Viddy Valley Playground located on the corner of Regiment Road and Cuckhold's Cove Road in the village of Quidi Vidi.

The Quidi Vidi Village Foundation sent a flyer around their community requesting that everyone have an opportunity to participate in the naming of the playground and the name they came up with was K-i-d-d-y V-i-d-d-y and was chosen by consensus of the residents. They believe the spelling was very appropriate for a playground - Kiddy. As well, it represents one of the regular pronunciations of the name.

The people have been waiting for almost twenty years for this playground. It had been originally promised to be created in the early 1980s by the City of St. John's, but took this long for details to be worked out.

The playground is in a beautiful location overlooking Quidi Vidi Village. For as long as the community has been there, the residents and their children have used the meadow, which is now partially a subdivision and the playground, so they are very delighted that people will still be able to go to a place they have always enjoyed and be there as a family.

It is the hard work of the Quidi Vidi Village Foundation that keeps their community strong. It is an incredibly unique feature to have a little fishing village in the middle of a major capital city and we must protect it.

I wish to thank City Councillors Shannie Duff and Frank Galgay for their assistance, and also Wally Collins and Art Puddister for keeping us company on the rainy and blowing afternoon when the park was opened.

I especially wish to thank every board member of the Foundation. They should be proud and need to be congratulated for not giving up on their dream of having a playground for the children in the community and their families.

I ask that all hon. members congratulate the Quidi Vidi Village Foundation for all their hard work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce that the roll-out of the new and a more secure drivers' licences and photo identification cards have begun.

The first cards were issues last Monday, December 4, at our office in Harbour Grace. Mr. Harry Lilly of Heart's Delight was the very first person in our Province to receive one of these cards, a new photo identification card.

This morning, I had the honour of presenting the first driver's licence issued at our Mount Pearl location to Susan Brown of St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud to partner with our colleagues in the other Atlantic provinces in providing these new licences. Although all of us are responsible for our own jurisdictions, we have worked together through a joint Request For Proposals to offer a new licence and photo id with enhanced security features and a similar format. Through this co-operative approach, we have been able to provide better security for the same or slightly lower cost than we previously paid.

For example, Mr. Speaker, the new design includes security patterns on the front of the card which are visible only under ultraviolet light. There are one-dimensional and two-dimensional bar codes, micro-printing and a ‘ghost' portrait. The laminate coating on the card contains an optical image that increases the card's durability, security and tamper resistance. These patterns shift in colour as the card is tilted. With these new security features, the new licences are extremely difficult to alter or counterfeit without detection.

The new design includes a nineteenth birthday indicator for young drivers followed by the date the cardholder will turn nineteen in bold yellow text. This text is positioned vertically next to the portrait. The new design also includes our new provincial brand.

The rollout is over a five-year period and residents will receive a new driver's licence upon renewal. That means that people do not need to replace their driver's licence until the expiry date noted on them.

Mr. Speaker, I am also the Minister Responsible for Consumer Affairs and, from that perspective, I am confident that the new drivers' licence will help prevent identity theft. I am very pleased that we are able to offer this improved service to our customers and I would like to thank the staff at the Motor Registration Division for all their hard work on this initiative.

Mr. Speaker, we will continue with the rollout of the new drivers' licences this week. In addition to our Mount Pearl office, residents in Grand Falls-Windsor and Labrador City will receive these new drivers' licences tomorrow. On Wednesday, our office in Corner Brook will start issuing them and then on Thursday our office in Clarenville will as well. We are once again on the leading edge in all of North America.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

I have to say it is pretty astounding stuff, with all the problems happening in this Province right now, that we could involve ourselves with this amount of time here in the House.

I notice the pattern shift in colour when the card is tilted. I noticed a lot of that here last week, actually, when we were tilting a few questions at the members opposite.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I suspect this has more to do with rolling out the brand than it has to do with the security of our licences and the protection of our consumers. The consumers of this Province need protection from this government and that minister, when you look at paying $180 to licence your car, and the other exorbitant fees that exist in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister has spared the consumer and the customer out there in rural Newfoundland the added expense of having to rush out prior to Christmas and getting the licences renewed right now.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the minister: Look for initiatives - look for more initiatives - to find a way to better serve the public than to confuse the public.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that in today's world identification and security are becoming more and more important and we have to keep up with new and innovative ways to protect people's identity from theft, and to provide them with a means of identification when called upon to provide it.

I say to the minister, also, that there are many other areas in which government should be working with the Atlantic Provinces and other jurisdictions in Canada to streamline things. I could think of a number of examples where things should be more streamlined between the provinces, and hopefully we will hear more about that in the months and years to come.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It gives me great pleasure to stand here in the House of Assembly to recognize an important event in the history of human rights. Yesterday marked fifty-eight years since the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations. In 1948, the United Nations unanimously adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all people and for all nations.

Mr. Speaker, in honour of this universal declaration, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador proclaimed the Human Rights Code, along with other jurisdictions in Canada and other nations that have proclaimed human rights legislation.

The provincial Human Rights Code, Mr. Speaker, which is enforced by the Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Commission, prohibits discrimination in the areas of employment, services, publications and accommodations, on the basis of race, religion, religious creed, political opinion, color or ethnic origin, national or social origin, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, physical or mental disability, source of income, and family status. Harassment on the above noted grounds and sexual solicitation is also prohibited under the Code, Mr. Speaker. The Code also requires employers to pay equal wages to males and females who perform the same or similar work.

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

In May of this year, this House of Assembly amended the Human Rights Code to also prohibit discrimination on the basis of age, on the basis of family status and source of income, and to extend the limitation period for bringing a complaint from six months to one year.

Mr. Speaker, government has also requested that the Human Rights Commission now engage in further public consultations to bring forward recommendations on further amendments to the Human Rights Code, including a reformulation of the definition of mental disability. We want to bring the current definition in line with the definition contained in the proposed new Mental Health Care and Treatment Act.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all members of this House, and all citizens of our Province, to mark the fifty-eighth anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations, and to promote the observance of human rights as a shared responsibility, and to reaffirm our commitment to eliminate discrimination and harassment in all its forms.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his release.

This is the fifty-eighth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It has been a long time, of course, and there has been a lot of progress in that fifty-eight years, but we still have a long way to go.

We have been very fortunate in this Province that not only did we bring in a Human Rights Act to commemorate what happened back there by the United Nations, but we have been pretty vigilant over the years in updating our Human Rights Act to reflect the changing societal values that we do have; but, of course, one must be forever vigilant.

There are still a lot of countries in the world where human rights are not being recognized near enough, and certainly nowhere near the standards that we in Canada face. China, for example, South America, and I reference even a news report I heard over the weekend from Iraq where the Taliban killed a grandmother, her daughter, and two granddaughters, all for the crime of them being teachers. That is just absolutely unacceptable. We must, I say to the minister, be forever vigilant, not just on the fifty-eighth anniversary, but each and every year. As long as we have human rights violations in our world, we should continue to persevere and insist that it be eradicated.

Thank you.

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

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

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

As the previous speaker said, there has been a lot done in the area of human rights and protection over the past number of years, but there still remains much more to do. I would like to point out that in this country we enjoy relatively good human rights legislation. Other countries are not so fortunate, and I would like to draw attention to the role that our troops are playing in Afghanistan, in particular, in helping provide that country with some basic human rights that we take for granted.

There were some good legislation amendments made last year, when we did away with discrimination based on age for under nineteen and over sixty-five. I agree with the minister completely, that we need a new definition of mental disability under the new Humans Rights Code.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. R. COLLINS: Just by leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

Leave is granted.

I think that is a very true saying, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to close by saying, as a reminder to everyone, that an injustice to one is an injustice to all, and we have a responsibility to stop discrimination and human rights violations at every opportunity we see them occur.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral questions.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week Joan Cleary was fired from her job as CEO of the Bull Arm Corporation because of the flagrant abuse of the Public Tender Act. However, Mr. Speaker, the Premier can give $15 million to his buddies without going to tender on the fibre optic deal. The Premier can also give $300,000 in an untendered contract to his Tory campaign manager during the last election to do a feel good promotion. It is obvious that the Premier has two standards, one for himself and one for everyone else.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why did you break the Department of Business's guidelines on the fibre optic deal and why did you break the Public Tender Act for your feel good campaign?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite has a very short memory when he talks about feel good campaigns. If we started to look back at some of the things that were spent by his government, we have the good things are happening campaign. They spent $250,000 for self promotion; all about them, all about the leader at the time. We have the Lower Churchill ad campaign, $181,900 for a project that just never happened; pumped up, spent the money on their friends. Actually, in fact, some of their friends, Bristol Communications, for example, over a period of four or five years donated $254,000 to the Liberal Party. For that they received $20 million in advertising contracts. Then we have the Voisey's Bay ad campaign. That cost the taxpayers $635,000. That is the kind of money that was spent on ad campaigns by this government. Then, of course, we had attack ads against doctors, and that cost them another $90,000.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The fact of the matter is, Premier, you broke the law and you never answered the question as to why you broke the law.

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development said that no money would be given to companies involved in the fibre optic deal until after April of next year, money would not flow until after the Budget which comes down in April.

Given that the Auditor General has already been given or has received an additional $50,000 just to investigate this deal - and he will probably be back looking for more money, according to what he told us last week - and given the fact that the Auditor General said this report can be back before October, I ask the Premier: Will you hold off on giving these companies the $15 million until the Auditor General's report on this fibre optic deal is complete?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, we are going to finish off talking about what he was talking about the last time, and that was breaking the law with respect to $300,000, which is a number that he has completely made up off the top of his head, which he spoke about on Open Line, which he throws out to the public, which is a completely inaccurate number. That number is inaccurate and that is not the right number. The number is actually, in fact, less than $200,000 and the consulting fees that were actually paid to that firm were $70,000, of which $25,000 was paid by the federal government.

Having said that, after we got the Atlantic Accord - I have said time and time again to the people of this Province and the people in this Assembly, that Accord exercise was not about money. It was about pride and respect and dignity to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We were notified late in the week that cheque was going to be presented. We had very little time. We had already retained Bristol to do a small piece of creative work, which was well within the $50,000 guideline. Very late in the week we were notified that the federal government wanted to do a very quick promotion. We felt is was very, very important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and especially to the children of Newfoundland and Labrador, that they know what it was all about and that they take pride in our accomplishment, and they wear it right on their sleeve to the best of their ability because it is so important. In that particular ad that was done there were no politicians. It wasn't Roger Grimes or Gerry Reid or Judy Foote or any of the former ministers of government, they were ordinary people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) saying their names.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I apologize for that. If I am using the names, I am sorry; apology done.

It was ordinary people. Men, women and children of our Province appeared in that ad with smiles on their faces. You cannot put a price on that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, it is also about how you spend taxpayers' money. The fact of the matter is, whether it was $70,000 or $300,000, you broke the law and you still have not told us why you did it, except for the fact that this fellow was your campaign manager in the last provincial election.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province are investing 30 per cent of the total cost of the project on the fibre optics, yet we are getting an equity share. Instead, the companies who are investing less are getting all of the profits. The Premier continuously calls for equity shares in the offshore and the Lower Churchill, yet is throwing $15 million at these three companies and getting no equity stake.

I ask the Premier: Why are these companies, Persona, MTS Allstream and Rogers, getting fibre strands and profits when the people of this Province are only getting fibre strands, and to date we do not even know how many fibre strands we are getting?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we are four weeks into this exercise now and obviously, as the minister said, the hon. member opposite just simply does not understand. He cannot comprehend what this is all about.

We actually own an asset. In fact, we own a piece of an $80 million asset, not a $50 million asset. We, in fact, own a piece of an $80 million asset, because not only do we have a piece of the link that comes down from Halifax and then comes across the Gulf and cuts across the bottom of the Province, we also have ownership of the rest of the fibre that goes all around the Province and goes all the way back again. We have a significant piece of a significant asset, similar to a condominium type of ownership, which you may or may not understand.

The other thing which is important: Last week the Government of Quebec, the Province of Quebec, invested $900 million-plus in IT, in infrastructure, in research and development. That is why Memorial University supports us and CONA supports us and Nati supports us and Canarie supports us and the Board of Trade supports us and the municipalities of this Province support us. Are they all wrong? I don't think so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

God bless the Auditor General. Hopefully, we will get some answers then.

My questions today are for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Minister, last Thursday you fired Joan Cleary from the Bull Arm Site, allegedly because of a breach of a Public Tender Act with regards to a contract to CSL Services Limited for $70,000. To date, you have refused to disclose the details of the CSL contract.

Minister, if you had completed your review to the extent that you could fire Ms Cleary, surely you had this information available last week. Why are you not disclosing the CSL information? Do you intend to disclose it, and when?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Honesty is very important, Mr. Speaker, and sometimes when you are honest in small details it will tell you where you are going in the larger picture. I was never asked for information on the winterization contract last week, and when that information becomes available, I have no problem in tabling it here in this House, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I reiterate my earlier comment. Surely you had the information in your possession. You justified the firing of Ms Cleary based upon that information. If you had enough to fire her, I would assume you had it available, and if you have it available, will you undertake to table it in this House? If so, if you had it, I would presume we can have it at least by tomorrow.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I was not asked in this House on Thursday to present or table any kind of information on the winterization contract that was let at Bull Arm. That is the long and short of it, Mr. Speaker. Once we have information, then I will be happy to table it in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe I will ask the minister a direct question because she is fudging on wanting to give us the information. We do ask, in your undertaking, that you would provide it, and well before the House closes on Thursday.

Minister, maybe you can tell us then, without having the information readily available at your fingertips: What was wrong with the CSL Services contract? Why was the contract allowed to stand if it was improperly let? What are the legal consequences of that breach, and was there any criminal wrongdoing in the CSL contract situation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was quite clear last week, on Thursday here in the House, when I said the winterization contract was done completely outside the Public Tender Act. That is why the actions taken were taken.

As far as I understand - and I have reviewed it completely, Justice is having a look at it, as well as the government purchasing agency - there was no intentional wrongdoing or political interference nor is there any criminal intent, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Minister, this is the second incident of wrongdoing at the Bull Arm Site Corporation revealed in the past two weeks. You stated last week in this House that you were responsible for what goes on in your department, yet you fail to take responsibility. It is quite clear the law has been getting short shift on your watch, in your department, and some people are running amuck.

When are you going to take responsibility, admit that you are responsible, and instead of using people like Ms Cleary as scapegoats to hide your own incompetence, do the honourable thing and resign?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Let's consider the source. This is the same person who made a phone call to offer up his own son as a Conservative candidate to run in his seat, which is a Liberal seat, so that it could be made available, so that he could be made available to get appointed to the bench. This is the source. This is who is asking for this woman's resignation, an honourable woman, a woman with integrity, a woman with the respect of this entire Cabinet and this entire Province, and this person is asking for that. Well, let me tell you something, this woman has done an absolutely marvelous job in her portfolio. She has done the open and the accountable thing. As soon as she became aware of it she notified Cabinet on Thursday morning and a decision was made in conjunction with the minister on her recommendation. We do the right thing. When something becomes apparent we deal with it, the same as we dealt with the Auditor General. We acted quickly because your government took the Auditor General out, and you know where that ended up. The nerve of him!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The bully comes to his feet with his personal attacks. I say, Mr. Premier, there is one thing I can judge, and I am a good judge of character - the people of this Province are starting to judge yours. They will judge -

Minister, maybe you can answer this one on your own props. Minister, you have indicated officials in your department have conducted a review of all contracts done at the Bull Arm Site Corporation as a result of the security shed debacle. Will you advise the House if Spectra Energy has done any work whatsoever for the Bull Arm Site since October, 2003, the nature of the work, the amounts paid to have that work done, and was the Public Tender Act used to have that work done? Will you undertake to provide that information to the House by Wednesday of this week?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the review of the work at Bull Arm is still being completed. I will look for the information that the hon. House Leader has asked for and I will provide it to the House once I have found it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the interest of completeness, Minister, as well: Will you undertake to table copies of all contracts awarded at the Bull Arm Site since October of 2003 and the details of those contracts, and would you be able to do so by Wednesday of this week?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to see where proprietary information is involved, but where it is possible to table documents, I am more than happy to table documents. Perhaps they might be interested in some prior to 2003. It might make the discussion really interesting, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week we heard of instances where there was interference involving the public tendering process at the Bull Arm Site. Concerns have been brought to our attention involving another contract and the suspect process that was followed.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year a tender was issued for the site food services for the Labrador Correctional Centre. At the close of the tender the low bidder was Station Steakhouse, a company in Central Newfoundland. This low bidder received calls from the correctional facility in Labrador telling them they won the tender. However, shortly thereafter this $225,000 tender was cancelled and reissued. The second time around, a company named Atlantic Catering, who was unsuccessful during the first round of the bids was awarded the contract. It just so happens that Atlantic Catering was the largest contributor to the Minister of Education's campaign in 2003, providing over 20 per cent of her total election funds.

I ask the Minister of Justice: Why was this original tender cancelled?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of this contract but I certainly will make inquiries with my officials and report back to the House as soon as I have that information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, given the fact that this company has such close ties to the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East, and the fact that a tender call was cancelled and reissued in favour of this company, I ask the Minister of Justice: Can you provide any guarantees that the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East, or her officials, did not discuss this contract with you or any of your officials in your department?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I learned a long time ago not to give guarantees, but I do undertake to investigate this, to find out about this tender, and I will bring this information back here to this House of Assembly when I have it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I am sure someone knows, because the Member for Exploits was supposed to do this work three months ago and they are still waiting for a response back.

Mr. Speaker, once again it seems a little too convenient that a company with such close ties to the Tory Party were to benefit from a cancelled tender call.

I ask the minister: Could you please provide us with who in the Department of Justice made the decision to cancel this tender, and will you undertake to release all documents, including the bids received, related to this tender call?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I will say it again: I am not aware of this contract. I am not aware of anything the Member for Bay of Islands has raised here. I will undertake to go to the officials in the department to make the inquiries and come back to this House with the information.

I will come back with the information, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Finance.

From 1990 to 2003, public service pensions were not increased even though the cost of living rose by almost 50 per cent. Since 2003, pensioners sixty-five and over receive only a 1 per cent per year increase, and this does not include people who have retired before age sixty-five. The average public sector pension is $10,000 per year.

Mr. Minister, will your government index public sector pensions to the cost of living and provide a lump sum as a catch-up for the loss in income incurred by public sector pensioners since 1990?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member should know that pensions are based on your income, and they are based on your years of service. They are based on negotiations, through collective agreements, on each of these, and that is exactly what has happened in this case.

What we have done, in fact, in our pension plan right now - she is asking us to put money in the pension plan in which there is no foundation to do it, when we are $1.3 billion short in the Public Service Pension Plan. We just borrowed $350 million. We just put $400 million, another $50 million on top of the $350 million, into a Public Service Plan to try to get up to a level where it can be funded, and she is asking us to further erode the unfunded liability and pass on that debt.

Any of the unions representing people out there, you ask them where they are on this issue, they want to see the plan put on a solid footing. They want to see if fully funded. They do not want to see an erosion of a plan occur before that point in time. If it is fully funded and it is 100 per cent, why are you going to take it out of 37,000 peoples' pockets in this Province?

We have looked at low-income people. We eliminated income tax for low-income people below $11,500, below $19,000 for a family of two. We have increased supplements. We indexed supplements. We put $32.8 million into a drug plan for low-income people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the House knows that none of what he said is an answer to what I am asking. We have a group of pensioners who are being discriminated against at a time when we are celebrating the Declaration of Human Rights, which says there shall be no discrimination on the basis of employment, age and source of income.

Public sector pensioners in this Province have been subject to discrimination relative to the working public sector because they were completely left out of the indexing offer that this government made to public sector employees this year.

I am asking again: Will the minister and will the government abide by equity principles and treat pensioners the same as the working public sector? We have to redress the wrong that has been done to them.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member is showing a complete lack of understanding of what constitutes a pension that someone is eligible for.

Every pension negotiated by their unions, by them when they worked for this Province, is based on a certain per cent for each year of service based on your average, your best five years of income in almost all cases, and the years of service, for 2 per cent a year, and you calculate a pension based on that.

There is absolutely no obligation at all, other than what was negotiated and agreed to. There is no discrimination of any nature. Ask the unions out there, and they will tell you that. I have spoken with some union leaders and people on the same basic issue. While they agree, they would like to see somebody get an increase out there, there is nothing they are not entitled to. They are getting exactly what they are entitled to according to law.

At such time, if the pensions were fully funded in this Province, not short nearly $2 billion as is the case today, the Public Service Plan close to $1.3 billion short, the Uniformed Services Plan hundreds of millions short, and the Teachers' Pension Plan is still not fully funded in spite of putting $1.953 billion in - she is not talking fact, Mr. Speaker, and misleading the public on what she is saying.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, last week the people of this Province were shocked to learn the cost of the Province's branding campaign. They were shocked to hear the Minister of Business defend excessive spending, such as over $20,000 for one sign outside the Confederation Building. In his response, the minister said the contract for this work was tendered. In December of last year, the Premier said: We commenced a competitive proposal process.

I ask the minister: Did the Department of Business follow the normal process, which is to go through the Division of Tendering and Contracts in the Department of Transportation and Works?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I think the Opposition's ship continues to go out, and I fear and suspect that it will never come in if they keep damaging the Party the way they are, putting out misinformation and false information in regard to what they are saying, and press releases that they put out in regard to the $40,000.

On Backtalk, on Friday afternoon, I clarified exactly what happened. Each and every one of those signs, two signs, cost $12,500 apiece. There is a piece in regard to excavation and site work, et cetera, and that is exactly what happened. They also continue to put out that it would cost $40,000 for two plywood billboards, which is totally false. I heard the Member for Twillingate refer to it on Backtalk as well, that he was up and looking out through the window at the two plywood signs, and everybody in this Province who ran across those signs know exactly what they are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know what the minister said in answer to a question last week, and that was: And then there was a further $40,000 that went into the actual signage, and that was part of the implementation of it.

You said it, Minister. You were asked a question and that was your comment. Now, I will ask you again: Did you follow the normal tendering process for this branding campaign, and did it go through the Division of Tendering and Contracts in the Department of Transportation and Works?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: If the hon. member is referring to the signage only, Mr. Speaker, I certainly referenced that it is subject to ATIP, as everything, I suppose, in this House is subject to ATIP, and I suggested that they make an ATIP request in regard to that signage. That is exactly what I said.

In the meantime, you know, as I said on Backtalk, $12,500 for the signage itself and then the signage had to be placed. There was excavation work, there was site work to be done. There was a transportation cost as well, and that is exactly what happened, Mr. Speaker, but this is all about pride. This is about forty-three different versions of the government logo out there. That is exactly what this is. That spells confusion.

This is about placing this Province's rightful place in the global marketplace. That is what this is about, and businesses in this Province will certainly diversify our economy and grow our economy for the future, and that will provide -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, maybe if I do not mention anything about cost - and I will ask the minister again - did the Department of Business go through the normal tendering process, which is to go through the Division of Tendering and Contracts in the Department of Transportation and Works?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: I apologize to the member if I did not answer her because I got carried away there in regard to how I am proud of the brand. Across this Province I have witnessed different stakeholders, the Boards of Trade, the Chambers of Commerce, et cetera, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, how they bought into this brand.

Certainly, we followed government processing, government purchasing. It was done by Transportation and Works. I understand that everything was followed in that process, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: I ask the minister: Will he tender the documents for us before Wednesday -

AN HON. MEMBER: Table them.

MS FOOTE: Sorry about that.

Will he table the documents for us before Wednesday of this week?

Mr. Speaker, we all know that $1.2 million spent on the branding initiative was excessive. We all know that the money could have been spent in different other areas of this Province.

I ask the minister: Is the $77,000 that you spent on new furniture, including desks, chairs, coffee tables and bookcases for the Department of Business, justified, given the serious needs of this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A question has been asked.

The chair calls upon the Minister of Business and asks him to put forward his reply.

MR. O'BRIEN: I guess, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member called back from China to get those prices, or probably from New Zealand. She didn't think about what they could spend the extra money on when they were there, I can guarantee you that.

The Department of Business, the current area, was due for upgrading at the time and it was part of an upgrading right across government departments. It made very good fiscal sense to do the upgrading prior to the Department of Business going there, so the money was well spent. It had not been upgraded for thirty years, probably, as I understand it. Certainly, the furniture and everything else there was thirty years old as well.

We represent the Province and we entertain CEOs of corporations from all over the world, and we have to have a professional image when we do that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Wait now, Mr. Speaker, he is talking about an upgrade that was going on throughout every department of government, but the Department of Business did not exist. I mean, it has only been there for three years, so I guess we are asking whether or not it was necessary to spend that kind of money. According to the information we received as well, over $46,000 was spent on renovations up to July 20 in the Department of Business.

I ask the Minister of Business: Do you feel that the $123,000 on office upgrades and furniture are a pressing priority of government, and would you please provide a list of any additional additions that have been taken since July?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: I say to the hon. the member, if she wants any other further upgrades just make an ATIP request. You understand what it all means and how it works.

In the meantime, we are all aware of the pressing challenges that government have, and all the challenges that governments have had since 1949 when we became a Province of Canada. Certainly, yes, absolutely, if you want to sit down here today, you could spend a whole budget on social programs, absolutely, but we have to grow this Province, we have to diversify our economy, we have to put more money into the department of the Treasury, and put more money in the Department of Finance to make sure that we can take care of the social needs of this Province, and that is exactly what it is about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last spring we amended the FPI Act to prevent FPI from selling any of its assets without the permission of government. I would like to ask the Minister of Fisheries if FPI has asked for and received permission to sell one of its groundfish freezer trawlers which was built three years ago at the cost of $15 million?

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. member for his question.

FPI did make a request, as per the legislation that was introduced and passed in the Province last year and proclaimed since then, for permission to sell, I believe, a couple of vessels, and reacquire two others in their place. Everything that we have seen indicates to us that makes perfectly good business sense. The permission was sought from government for that, and we have given that permission, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of documents.

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

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the contract, Design and Tender of Guard House/Security Shed for Bull Arm, as requested by the Opposition House Leader.

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

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as required by Section 70 of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, I rise today to table the annual report on the administration of the act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motions.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under Standing Order 63 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Under Standing Order 63 and 64 dealing with private member's motions, the coming Wednesday is Private Member's Day for the Opposition. The Member for Grand Falls-Buchans would like to put forward a motion that we will be debating on Wednesday. However, she already has one on the Order Paper and that is not permitted under Standing Order 64(3).

I have spoken to the Government House Leader and with his consent, and leave of the Leader of the NDP, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans would like to withdraw the motion she currently has on the Order Paper and substitute it with a new one that we would debate on Wednesday coming. And I understand from the Government House Leader we have his consent in that regard.

MR. SPEAKER: Has consent been given?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will agree with that.

MR. SPEAKER: With consent and with leave, the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans to put forward a notice of motion to be debated on Wednesday, Private Members' Day.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to read into the record the following motion:

WHEREAS this Province, as an energy producer, has benefitted because of increased offshore oil revenue; and

WHEREAS the people of this Province are forced to pay some of the highest home heating fuels in North America and are suffering because of these high prices; and

WHEREAS many people on fixed incomes are unable to afford to heat their homes; and

WHEREAS electricity rates in this Province have increased by a dramatic 15 per cent over the past two years;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call on the provincial government to provide energy subsidy to low income earners in this Province;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call on the provincial government to eliminate the HST portion of electricity and home heating fuel to ensure people can heat their homes this winter.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again today with a petition from the people of Lark Harbour concerning Route 450 on the South Shore of the Bay of Islands. Once again, the people in the area who drive the road on a regular basis have asked that the government take into consideration the road conditions, the safety conditions and the problems which have occurred over the last number of years.

Mr. Speaker, in the last three or four years there has been hardly, if any, money spent, only for general maintenance on an emergency basis, and myself and the councils had to push on a regular basis to have this done. We know that the department in Corner Brook and Western Newfoundland have made some of the areas in the Bay of Islands their priority, but again, we get overlooked for opening up some land up on Massey Drive for future development in the next twenty or thirty years, $450,000, while we have gabion baskets, we have roads with no lines on them, we have shoulders of the roads that have dropped, and we have a major safety problem on the roads.

I know the minister was out there and did not even drive down on the South Shore. He went so far down and did not even call any of the councils. He did not meet with any of the mayors. He did not give respect to the volunteer council in the Bay of Islands who have written the three ministers, this minister and the two previous ministers, to have a meeting for the last two-and-a-half years and we still have yet to get a meeting with the minister. Yet, the minister will go out there, drive around and give the impression that he was down around the South Shore, but he did not go to York Harbour or Lark Harbour. On a Sunday morning he went as far as McIver's and dropped in and asked a store clerk if he could find someone to show him where the bad road is.

Mr. Speaker, this is a safety concern. The ministers in these departments are supposed to work on behalf of all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador and put politics aside, but obviously we see a major problem with this minister and the two former ministers. These issues are major. I have warned the minister before of the safety concerns. I have written the previous minister about rocks going through the gabion baskets. We had to fight to get the lines painted on the road. The shoulders of the roads have deteriorated so much that there are dips on both sides. The department in Corner Brook is well aware of the issues. I know the minister has been written to by his own officials in Corner Brook, making recommendations to have certain sections of Route 450 upgraded, but to no avail, absolutely no avail. It is almost to the point of neglect by the department, I guess for punishment for not going along with the Premier when the Premier was out promising all the upgrades for the roads during the last provincial election.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to put the minister on notice, that if there is a serious accident that does happen the minister would be well aware of the conditions of Route 450.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I do believe that the Chair called Orders of the Day too fast and -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) both sides, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize petitions on this side over here.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MS GOUDIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a group of constituents in my district. Recently, I met with a group who are involved in a labour dispute, a group of security guards at the Deer Lake Regional Airport. I have a petition here. There are approximately 150 to 200 names on the petition. It basically reads:

We, the undersigned, call on the House of Assembly to urge government to prohibit the use of replacement workers during any lawful lockout or strike, and to provide adequate and appropriate penalties for any employer who engages replacement workers and for any person who acts as a replacement worker.

Basically, Mr. Speaker, we had a discussion around this issue and I have been in communication with our Department of Labour, our Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment and our labour agency. The group has been working with - both sides have been working with the labour agency to bring this, I guess, dispute to an end. I am encouraged that they continue to work with the labour agency. My understanding is that they had a meeting last week. I am also of the understanding that in 2007 our government will be reviewing all labour legislation and at that point in time all stakeholders, including this group and ourselves, will have an opportunity to have input into any labour legislation, and I invite everyone to take that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I present this petition now to the House of Assembly.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One final pitch, I guess, before the House closes, on behalf of the people of Burgeo and Ramea. I got in a little spot of trouble on the weekend. They thought that because I had spoken out on this petition, that I was at least satisfied with porta-potties. Nothing could be further from the truth. I thank the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I thank the minister for the fact that he did put, on an interim, temporary emergency basis, a couple of porta-potties on a piece of two-by-four in Ramea and in Burgeo, but I can assure you -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Maybe, Mr. Speaker, if the minister wants to get up and respond he can -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

I ask members for their co-operation as he presents his petition.

The hon. the member.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the minister, instead of bellowing and hollering and laughing, this is a serious matter and I do not mean to make light of it when I talk about his. Maybe he does, but I do not, and the people of Burgeo and Ramea certainly do not make light of this.

We asked for porta-potties on an interim emergency basis. I just say to the minister, and he is well aware of this, I can understand that he did it on a temporary basis, that is understandable, but obviously it is not acceptable. The minister knows - he is from Labrador, and we have snow in Labrador, too, and cold weather - he well knows that the cold weather plays a factor with the use of these things. It is not appropriate to have just porta-potties there when we have a permanent regular established ferry service.

All we are imploring him is that, in the future, certainly by spring - it may be a bit late now in the year for construction - maybe in the spring he can make room in his budget so that hopefully we can put something in these communities of a more permanent nature and a more adequate nature, rather than just porta-potties that do not have any running water, that do not have any heating type of system, that there would be something a bit more safe, a bit more health conscious, put in these communities.

As I said, we appreciate what the minister has done. There was a quick response. It took me five or six petitions in here to embarrass the government into doing this, but once this is done - this is not about embarrassment. This is about having the appropriate facilities.

I implore the minister, on behalf of users of the ferry service and all the tourists who visit that area, please, maybe next spring, we can get rid of the little blue porta-potties and put something down there that is of a more permanent, functional and usable basis.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and you will hear no further from me in this sitting of the House regarding the Burgeo and Ramea port-potty situation, but I will be back in the spring when the winter thaws and we will see how they made out on the South Coast with the porta-potties.

Thank you.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, stand supporting a petition from people in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and I ask members for their co-operation to enable the member to present her petition.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, stand with a petition from people in the Province concerned about the labour dispute that is going on at the Deer Lake Airport, and I, too, would like to speak further to the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Members are well aware that there are people to my left who are not being very understanding.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and asks all members for their co-operation.

The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is presenting a petition and the Chair recognizes her now.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again I say that I, too, am standing with a petition from people of the Province concerned about the labour dispute in Deer Lake and I would like respect from the floor to present the concerns of the people in this Province.

Thank you.

Lockouts are bad enough, but when lockouts go on as long as the one in Deer Lake has gone on, it is unacceptable. The thing that is really disturbing to the people who have signed this petition is that the lockout would not work if replacement workers were not being used, and using replacement workers who are workers other than existing managers and non-union supervisors. I mean, we understand the use of management and non-union supervisors, but when you get replacement workers who are brought in from outside, it tramples on the rights of the workers in the workplace. I see the use of replacement workers as a violation of human rights that employees have. I think the people who have signed this petition see it the same way and, no matter what happens in Deer Lake in regard to the resolution, the issue of replacement workers has to be dealt with in this Province.

We have other provinces, such as British Columbia and Quebec, who, for a number of years, have prohibited the use of replacement workers and it has not destroyed the provinces. The working place has not been destroyed. The ability of employers and unionized workers to work together has not been destroyed because replacement workers are not used.

So, I was very glad to hear the MHA across the way from Humber Valley refer to the fact that she agrees that replacement workers should not be used. I think, for the good of the people in this Province, this is something that we have to expedite and we have to make sure that it happens. The resolution of what is going on in Deer Lake is one thing, but the problem of replacement workers will be an ongoing problem that we will have to deal with.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move Motion 1.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn today, Monday, December 11, at 5:30 o'clock p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move Motion 2.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 2 is, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn today, Monday, December 11, at 10:00 o'clock p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move second reading of Bill 69, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 69, Order 7, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act." (Bill 69)

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to bring forward a bill seeking amendments to the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, members of this House will recall that last winter government brought forward amendments to this legislation to establish a balanced regime for collective bargaining through the establishment of a special Standing Fish Price-Setting Panel to act as an arbitration panel to assist in the setting of fish prices.

Mr. Speaker, government's intent in bringing forward these amendments was to ensure the timely commencement of the annual fishery and to maintain the confidence of the international market with respect to the reliability of the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery.

Mr. Speaker, since that time, of course, we have undergone a full fishing season and I am pleased to report that the fish panel have successfully assisted processors and harvesters in the establishment of prices for seven species in 2006.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the House will recall that at the time these changes were introduced last February, government stated very clearly - my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries - that we would be prepared to revisit these amendments and bring forward additional improvements should they be required, Mr. Speaker. With a fishing season of experience behind us, government has identified several other amendments that we believe will further enhance the legislation, Mr. Speaker.

While mandatory FOS will remain in place in the regulation, this amendment will provide government with the flexibility to provide the panel with additional arbitration options should complexities emerge during a season. We feel that it is an appropriate addition, and one that will ensure that alternative arbitration options can be explored should they be required.

Government is also advancing a further amendment that would allow the fish panel, on the application from a party, to reconsider an earlier decision if a reasonable case can be made that a failure to do so could place the conduct of the fishery in jeopardy. The provision to reopen an earlier decision would allow the panel authority to intervene in the event of market instability, currency fluctuations or other exceptional factors that, if left unaddressed, could have dramatic implications for the fishery and those who rely upon it, Mr. Speaker.

The final series of amendments are of an administrative nature and clarify that amendments brought forward last winter apply to all parts of the Province, excepting those included in the Labrador Inuit Settlement Area.

Mr. Speaker, collectively I am confident these amendments are both prudent and sound and will provide the fish panel with the necessary flexibility to ensure that they can work with harvesters and processors to maintain a balanced collective bargaining regime for the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, this being said, I remind hon. members that the government does not own the collective bargaining process. Ultimately, while government can provide the necessary support to help stakeholders resolve disputes when they occur, it is the processors and the harvesters who have the responsibility to work collaboratively to advance this important issue for all who rely on the fishery in this Province.

We can all talk for hours, I guess, about the importance of the fishery and, of course, the challenges we have had in the last year or so, but we believe these are enhancements. The minister said last year, on a number of occasions, that we would look to see what happened in the first year, try to build on that, try to enhance it and try to improve it. That is what we are trying to do here, Mr. Speaker. There are no simple solutions - a lot of times we know the history of this Province, of disputes - but I think it is starting with a timely start to the industry, and making sure that in the global market we are seen as a place where you can do business when it comes to the fishing industry.

Mr. Speaker, with those opening remarks I will leave it to the floor, to hear comments from the other side. Of course, my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, certainly will be adding to this debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am rising today to have a few brief notes on Bill 69, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

Maybe the minister will tell me later if he has had discussions with both the processing groups and the union, what they are saying about this, and if they have approved of this.

Mr. Speaker, it seems we have come full circle to where we started back, I think, in 1996, when Minister Efford, I think, at the time, or in 1997, brought in Final Offer Selection. Up until that time we just went through the normal bargaining process whereby the union and the fish processors would sit down and try to negotiate the price for a pound of fish, whether that be shrimp, crab, groundfish or capelin, or whatever species we were offering or catching at the time. It was decided at that time that we would try to find a better way of negotiating so that we could have a more timely start to our fishing season, which normally in this Province starts around April 1 and continues well on up until on or about Christmas, and in some areas even longer.

Mr. Speaker, Final Offer Selection was based upon: that there would be a panel established, or an individual who acted as the arbitrator, I guess, and that the processors would put forward a price that they said they could afford to pay at the time, and the union representing fish harvesters would put forward what they wanted for their catch. So there were two offers on the table and the arbitrator would have to decide on one and not the other, and that would be binding upon both parties. That worked, I say to the minister, fairly well for quite a number of years. We ran into a few problems, but nothing compared to what the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, the current minister, encountered when he tried to change all this process back a couple of years ago when he tried to bring in raw material sharing.

As far as I know, there are still ministers and still MHAs on the Tory side of the House who have not visited some fishing towns in their districts since then because they are afraid to go back, afraid of what will happen to them. I say that with a grin on my face because I had that occasion just recently, to visit one Tory district in particular, and they said they have not seen their member - actually two - have not seen their member since the member who represents St. Anthony area, the Straits, brought in this ill-conceived and ill-fated final offer - not final offer - when the minister brought in the raw material sharing.

The Minister of HRE, the minister who just introduced the bill, must think that I am talking about him because he just bawled out to me that he has been in La Scie, by the way. I wasn't talking about you, I say, Minister, but it leads me to believe that you just visited La Scie for the first time in almost two years. Is that what you are trying to tell me? That is why I sort of grin.

I know we have other members who have not been in the fishing areas of their district for just about two years, for various reasons, but I think it has more to do with this ill-conceived, ill-fated raw material sharing plan than it has to do with much else.

Listen, I am sure that the hon. members opposite will work that out with their constituents before the next election, and they will know all the reasons why they didn't come there for over a year-and-a-half. I am sure, as well, that the hon. members opposite will also find out in the next general election what their constituents and their voters think of them. Having said all of that, I am glad to see that the minister has been in La Scie, and I hope he got a warm welcome.

Mr. Speaker, there is a thing that sort of bothers me about clause 6 and maybe the minister, or the Minister of Fisheries probably, can stand later and explain that in more detail, because I know that it is a technicality that this falls under the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment. I think that is what your title is there. I know, having been there myself, that it is the Minister of Fisheries really who negotiates all this with the industry. Maybe he can get up later and talk about what it means that: "...the method of the Standing Fish Price-Setting Panel shall apply in establishing fish prices and conditions of sale and species where parties to collective bargaining have been unable to reach an agreement."

I am trying to figure out, what will he establish, what kind of a system he or she or the panel will establish if final offer selection does not work in order to establish a fish price. Minister, maybe you can explain some of the options that will be left open to this panel in the event that they cannot get an agreement between the processors and the union representing fish harvesters. If you can tell me some of that, because I think that is the guts of the whole changes that you are trying to make here and that is why I would like to know why you are doing it and what other types of settlements - for example, can the Standing Fish Price-Setting Panel, after this piece of legislation goes through, select any model that they prefer to be able to establish a price? What authority will be given that panel to determine whether or not these people actually go back to work at the end of the day?

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a lot to say about the bill yet, expect that it concerns the fishing industry. I can, I guess, stray off the topic a little bit here, Mr. Speaker, and talk about the fishery in general, when you consider that this is the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act; just like if this were a money bill, I could speak forever on any subject as I choose.

In the House of Assembly, I asked the Minister of Fisheries today -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Can you tell the Member for Lake Melville to lower his voice a little bit. It is difficult to hear around here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: I am glad to see that the minister says he agrees with me, that the Member for Lake Melville is making so much racket that he cannot hear me, and maybe he will have to get up the second time and do all this over again. I would like to thank you for your protection, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, last spring we amended the Fishery Products International Act, and there was a lot of fanfare concerning that. In fact, we spent most of the session in the spring of the year talking about FPI and wanting to amend the act because of how FPI had been behaving as a corporate citizen in this Province for the past year-and-a-half or so, having closed down the plant in Harbour Breton and the one in Fortune, and no work in Marystown since last December. We amended the act. In fact, we brought forward a couple of amendments that the government accepted and they wrote it into law under the Fishery Products International Act back last June. One of them was that FPI could not sell any of its assets without permission from the provincial government.

In the House of Assembly today I asked the Minister of Fisheries whether or not it was true that FPI had written or called the minister to ask for permission to sell some of its assets, mainly the Newfoundland Marten, a brand new factory-freezer vessel that they built three years ago at a cost of $15 million. The minister got up and said: Yes, not only have they done that - I do believe that is what you said, minister - yes, not only have they asked for permission to sell that one, but they have also asked for permission to sell other vessels. That concerns me, because FPI in 2003 bragged about - and I have a copy of their press release here somewhat - the fact that they had just built a brand new freezer trawler, groundfish freezer trawler that cost them $15 million, and the fact that Rev. Desmond McGrath was on hand to launch the boat, along with Mr. Derrick Rowe's wife, Linda, and they christened the vessel in Marystown, if I am not mistaken.

That was done on July 10, 2003, and in that same press statement, July 10, 2003, I say to the minister, they also talked about investing. In 2003, they talked about: They will invest over $20 million in modernizing its plant in Marystown, the one in Fortune, and the one in Harbour Breton, they would modernize their groundfish processing plant, and that the company plans to add another factory freezer to the groundfish fleet by year end. Now, I do not know if they have done that. Maybe you can check that one out for me. I know that they built the NEWFOUNDLAND LYNX since then, but my understanding is that is a shrimp trawler.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shrimp and turbot.

MR. REID: Shrimp and turbot.

What I am saying, I guess, is that in 2003 they boasted about adding this brand new vessel at a cost of $15 million, but they also boasted that they were going to spend $30 million on refurbishing the plants in Marystown, Fortune and Harbour Breton. Well, what a joke that was. What a joke that turned out to be, I say, minister. The fact of the matter is they closed Harbour Breton less than a year after that. I think they closed it about twelve months, or somewhat less - because it was not last fall that they closed Harbour Breton, it was the fall before. So, that would have been back, I think, in late 2004 that they closed the plant in Harbour Breton and then they followed the next year with the closure of the plant in Fortune. Last year, I can remember standing in the House of Assembly or asking you publicly in the media if it was true that FPI was tying up their factory freezer trawlers, tying up their groundfish trawlers, and would they be going back to work after Christmas, and you came on the airwaves of the Province and basically condemned me for not knowing all of the facts, you said. Just like the Premier does on various occasions in the House of Assembly, now his ministers have been trained to do it the same way. I think just before Christmas last year, or shortly after that, you came out and criticized me for not knowing what I was talking about because it was normal procedure for these draggers to come in at Christmastime and go back out after Christmas; that was the normal procedure.

Well, I say to the minister that I did know what I was talking about at the time because those draggers have not gone back to the fishing grounds since then and, as a result, all of the crews that work for FPI in the groundfish sector on their draggers and their trawlers have not seen a day's work, as far as I know, since late last November or early December.

Mr. Speaker, it concerns me when the minister does not have a problem with FPI going out and selling its assets, especially a brand new asset like a $15 million trawler, because these people have made a lot of commitments to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and it seems like every few months they break another one of those commitments.

Here is one right here: FPI International invests in new groundfish vessel and at the same time makes a commitment to rebuild the three plants in Fortune, Marystown and Harbour Breton - and we know what has happened here.

Minister, I think we put that amendment to the Fishery Products International Act, back last June, we put forward that amendment simply so that FPI could not go out and do as they wished with the plants and the vessels that FPI owns, but I do not understand why you do not see it as a problem when they are going out and selling one of these prize assets, a brand new factory freezer trawler. As you indicated today, there might be other factory freezer trawlers and other vessels that FPI might want to sell and that you have no problem with it.

Well, besides the fact that they are getting rid of an asset, and a valued asset, I also have concern for the people who work on these vessels. I am sure, when they find out that the vessel has been sold, they will have a bit of concern because they have just, I guess, effectively lost their jobs. So, along with the people they have laid off in the groundfish plants, you are going to see more layoffs in the groundfish harvesting sector of FPI.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask the minister, when he gets up later on this afternoon to give a little chat on this bill - I am talking about the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture - I would like for him to maybe give us a little history lesson as to what this government has been doing with regard to trying to get the plant on the South Coast open. I am talking, I guess, now that Harbour Breton has been sold to Mr. Barry, let's talk, in your speech later on today, about Fortune and Marystown.

I remember back in the spring of last year, and all through the fall, even prior to that, you were up ready to go to war with FPI, you and your government. They were not going to run roughshod over you, and they were not going to run roughshod over the Premier. It seemed to me like you had everything under control and that the people in Marystown, Harbour Breton and Fortune would soon go back to work, but obviously that has not happened.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like for the minister to give me his thoughts on FPI saying, basically, that the people in Marystown can make a deal, or we can make a deal with the union; all we want, we are not opening the groundfish plant in Marystown until the FPI Act is scrapped, until the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador scraps the FPI Act.

Just imagine, the minister stood up in the pan of a truck on O'Leary Avenue and ranted and tore - he stood in the House of Assembly and he stood elsewhere - and said: We are ready to go to war with FPI.

I tell you, it takes a lot to get you to go to war. You need to take some smacks up the side of the head - more than Mr. Harper is prepared to take from the Premier, I think, before he goes to war. Here is a company saying that we are not opening the Marystown plant - and I would like to hear the member who represents Marystown probably get up and give us a little thought about that this afternoon - I would like to know what they think about FPI saying that they are not going to open the plant until after the FPI Act is scrapped.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of questions about the whole FPI process, and we will ask some more in the few short Question Periods we have left. I also understand that I can talk to this bill later on in the day and into the night. As a result, I will sit down now and I will gladly listen to the minister probably give us some enlightening answers to some of the questions that I raised.

I would also like to hear from the Minister of Environment and Conservation, the member who represents Burin-Placentia West, and particularly Marystown, in the House of Assembly, to see what he thinks about what FPI is saying, because a little while ago, I think it was in the summer, when asked a question by the media of what he thought about something that FPI had to do, or had said about the plant in Marystown, he said that his opinion did not count. That is a strange thing for an MHA to say, and a Cabinet minister, that his opinion did not count when it comes to some very sensitive matters concerning half of his constituents and a company by the name of FPI. I tell you, if there was something affecting the employment of anywhere from 650 to 1,000 employees in my district I would hope that my opinion counted, and it would certainly be heard.

I would ask that the member who represents Marystown and Burin Placentia West get on his feet this afternoon and give us what he thinks about FPI selling its dragger fleet, closing down plants, and not going to open the plant in Marystown until after we scrap the FPI Act.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down and we will have a chance to listen to the two hon. gentlemen opposite enlighten us as to what they think about FPI, and answer some of the questions that I raised with regard to Bill 69, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am very pleased to speak to Bill 69, that will amend the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. There are a couple of things about this amendment, about this bill, that I want to comment on. Of course, the heart of it is section 19.11 which talks about the panel, and the power that the panel will have with regard to its decision-making authorities.

I guess I have some concern, as I think the Leader of the Opposition had - I think I heard him say something similar - I have concern about the fact that the panel will make a decision with respect to the matters in dispute and in accordance with the regulations. Then, I find out that the regulations are basically, and the regulations which are outside of the bill, are the heart of what that section is about. The regulations, as I just said, are outside of the bill. I have real concern that this bill does not include direction for the panel with regard to its decision making. The minister may make regulations, or the minister may delegate to the panel to do so with regard to the methods that will be used for the decision making. This disturbs me quite a bit.

We have had other bills, even in this sitting in the House - for example, the Health Research Ethics Authority - where the responsibilities of the panel and directions for the authority - in this case it was the authority - are included in the bill. I find it rather strange that these were not included in this bill as well. I do not even think it is sufficient to say that there are a variety of methods and you just pick and choose. I think that work should have gone into coming up with the decision-making method and it be included. I consider this a weakness in the bill that disturbs me.

Obviously, this will go forward. Then my question becomes: Well, if the panel has the authority to establish its own method of decision making, what is going to be available for the panel in doing the research around the methods? How will the panel make those decisions? Will the panel have the resources? Will there be researchers, or will there be money for the panel to have somebody do the research to come up with the different methods that could be employed by the panel?

If this is going to have teeth at all, this subsection 3, there have to be resources there for the panel in order to make it work. I find this a real weakness in the bill, to think that the very heart of this section, the stuff that is needed to make it work, is not included in the bill. I put that out there. I would be very happy if the minister would explain why it was seen that it was not necessary to put the heart of the bill in the bill itself? It is rather disturbing.

As I read this I think, you know: Yes, the pricing is a big issue. We know that, and I am very glad that government took pricing seriously and that this panel was put in place. We have seen the success of the panel over the first year. The method that was used this year has worked, but when I think about the income of people in the fishing industry, I realize that much more is needed than mechanisms with regard to the pricing. That is one thing. Good prices are important and good prices are what is going to put money in people's hands, but we need to do a lot more about the fishery than fixing the pricing issue. That is a big one, but we need to do more.

I believe that government has to put a lot more into the whole marketing of our industry. This industry continues to be the backbone of our Province. It is the backbone of our culture. Historically, it was the backbone of our economy. While I know discussions have gone on and I know in the consultation process there have been some recommendations with regard to marketing, I think that we need to see a lot more from government about government's commitment to marketing the fishing industry.

This government has shown itself to understand modern technology when it comes to communications. It understands modern methods with communications. It understands the need for branding, for example. I am not going to speak against that, the government understands the need for branding. The government has put over $1 million into branding for the Province; branding for us. If the government finds that so important, and I believe it is important, then why doesn't the government see the importance of putting a marketing council in place in this Province and start taking actions towards it?

The government understands marketing. This year $2.1 million was put into the marketing and product development budget for tourism. Our government understands marketing. Our government has a strategic marketing plan for the tourism industry from 2004 to 2008. So, the government understands the need to market. If we can have a tourism marketing council, than why can't we have a fishery marketing council? We know the methods. We know what needs to be done to get our message out there, so what are we going to do about it?

We need marketing in seafood. It is no good producing it, we have to market it as well. We have to develop our fishing industry. We have to develop our market. We have to find new markets. Improving and increasing our overall markets is going to increase returns for the people in the industry.

I encourage the government to take its skills and its know-how with regard to marketing, the skills and know-how that it is putting into tourism, the skills and know-how that it put into branding, the money that it is putting into tourism for marketing and the money that it is putting into branding, and use those resources in looking at our fishing industry. We cannot be using nineteenth Century methods when it comes to promoting our industry. We just cannot take that industry for granted. We need to develop it. Rural Newfoundland needs us to develop it. The people in the industry and people who are hoping to go into the industry need us to develop that industry.

I am grateful to have an opportunity, because of this bill, to speak to those issues today. I am sure I will have more to say as time goes on.

Thank you.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hope I can be understood clearly. I spent a couple of hours in a dental chair earlier today and I tell you, it does not feel very good. Whether I can be understood or not, I guess members will have to judge accordingly.

MR. SULLIVAN: It will be hard to get your teeth into this bill.

MR. RIDEOUT: I will not be able to get my teeth into this bill, I can tell you that.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, not to digress. Let me, first of all, try to respond to the concerns or issues raised by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, our colleague from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

First of all, this is not a pejorative remark, and it is not meant to be. Every piece of legislation that goes through this House, as far as I know, in my thirty-odd years here, has a clause which allows the government, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, to make regulations. The net result of all that, upheld by every court in the land, from Newfoundland to the Supreme Court of Canada, is that regulations made under the authority of the act have the full force and effect of law. In other words, if this piece of legislation provides for the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment to make a regulation regarding collective bargaining and the rights of the panel, that regulation, because it is made under the authority of the act, has the same force and effect as if it was written into the act. Every court, as I said, in the land has upheld the right of Parliament to delegate their regulatory authority, or regulatory regime, the right to make regulations to either the Lieutenant-Governor in Council or to the minister.

That is not something unique, and I would not counsel that there ought to be any concern that rather than write the various options for the panel in making its decisions into the act - those options might be conventional arbitration, they might be mediation, they might be some other novel idea that the panel may want to proceed with, but rather than writing them into the act and building inflexibility around them in that regard, the panel can come to the minister and say: Look, Minister, we have tried to bring both parties together. We have tried to bring them so close together that Final Offer Selection will work, but we do not think we can get there. We have tried everything. We have met with the parties individually. We have met with them, we have had them in collectively. They seem to be too far apart for Final Offer Selection to work, but we believe that if you give us the right for conventional arbitration, we can get there. We believe if you give us the right to utilize mediation, perhaps we can get there.

We are allowing the panel to do what it can, the best it can, but if it cannot get there then there is an out. There is an option for the panel to come to the minister and suggest that they take another avenue, that they take another approach, that they try something else. The panel, Mr. Speaker, have come to us and asked for that. We have consulted with the union and with the processors on the panel request. To be fair, neither side thinks that we are going far enough. The union would like to have the legislation amended taking out the shall, which at the moment says, the panel shall use Final Offer Selection. They would like to have that taken out and say may. Therefore, the panel, without reference to anybody, can, because of its own right and its authority under the legislation, go to some other means or utilize some other means. Again, like I said, it could be conventional arbitration or some other means of dispute settlement.

That is what the union would like to see, and that would be consistent with the Cashin Report from which all of this good stuff flows that we brought into this House last year. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, the processors do not want to hear tell of that. They were adamant against it last year, they are adamant against it now, they do not want the panel to have legislative authority to decide on their own whether they choose Final Offer Selection or whether they choose some other method of settling the dispute.

A kind of a middle-of-the-road approach, Mr. Speaker, recognizing that the panel has an issue, recognizing that the union has an issue and recognizing that the processors have concerns that ought to be taken into account, a kind of a middle-of-the-road approach is, give the authority to vary what the panel can do based upon the panel's request to the Minister of Labour, the minister who is responsible for this particular Act, the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. The panel can come to the minister and say, we have tried Final Offer Selection, minister, and for those reasons we do not think it is appropriate. Therefore, we are requesting you to give us the authority to use another method. By and large, it might very well be conventional arbitration.

The parties are too far apart. The union is not in the ballpark, in our opinion, based on our market intelligence. The industry is not in the ballpark, in our opinion, so Final Offer Selection is no good to anybody. Perhaps, if we allow them to make their pitch, make their presentation, and we can choose something in between, that might be more of a remedy than choosing something on each extreme end of the spectrum that does nothing for anybody.

Mr. Speaker, it is the hope of this government and this ministry, that at the end of the day this never has to be used. We hope that Final Offer Selection never has to be used. We hope that the industry can show the leadership that is required to move the industry along and reach negotiated agreements. That is what we hope. When we introduced this legislation in February of last year, we said, we hope it never has to be called upon, but we do not have the luxury of, coming April 1, not having a price established and a fishery opening. We can never force harvesters to harvest. We do not intend to try. We can never force processors to buy and process. We do not intend to try. But we intend to have a mechanism, a public policy mechanism, Mr. Speaker, that will allow a price to be established so that a given fishery will open on a given date, a price will be established and the fishery will open. That is all we can do.

We should not be jumping in bed with one group to the disadvantage of the other or vice versa. We try to create a level playing field so that as best as possible - I know there are some people out there in the industry, Mr. Speaker, who would like to see, perhaps, collective bargaining thrown out the door. Well that is not going to happen while we are the government and I do not think it is going to happen with any government in this Province. Collective bargaining in the fishing industry was brought in and made a reality in this Province decades ago. It is here to stay, it should be here to stay, and we may as well get used to it and try to work within it. That is the whole idea here.

The fact that the minister will have discretion here and be able to react to a request from the panel by regulation is not something unheard of, it is not something that we are not used to in legislation in the Province, so therefore I hope that addresses that issue.

I am not going to get into a big debate, Mr. Speaker, on the merits of the FPI Act and amendments that we made last year, but I will say this: FPI did request government approval to sell a couple of vessels, even though they are good vessels and relatively new vessels, that they contend, given today's fuel prices and operating efficiencies and so on, are not what they need. They have purchased a couple of other vessels to replace them. They are in the process of upgrading those vessels. They will meet their harvesting requirements if and when they get back to harvesting again, and I hope that is sooner rather than later. There is no impact, as I understand it, on the number of people employed on the vessels. There has been no negative reaction from anybody in the industry that I am aware of, and therefore no reason why this does not, from everything that we have seen, make good business sense and why it should not go ahead.

There are other areas of the FPI Act, FPI amendments that were raised by the Leader of the Opposition, that I will get into in Committee if he insists, but certainly on those amendments, I am not going to.

The Leader of the Opposition, somewhat along the lines of the Leader of the NDP, asked the question: What are those other alternatives for Final Offer Selection? The other alternatives depending on where the panel finds itself, Mr. Speaker, are very clear. It can range from conventional arbitration, it can be Final Offer Selection, it can be a mediation process, or it can be a process that more includes the facilitator, which is there anyway, which they did not use very much this year. One of the reasons why the panel thinks that the process did not work is that the facilitator was not engaged.

The Leader of the New Democratic Party talked about resources and the availability of resources to the panel to find out and make sure they are up on current market conditions. Mr. Speaker, the panel is funded. The panel has all the resources that it needs, as I understand it, to be up on market conditions, to be able to determine, depending on the species they are talking about, what the latest market intelligence is, what various quality levels should fetch in the market place. All of that resource is available and has been available to the panel for the past year and will continue to be available to them.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I suppose I should say that, again this is a middle of the road approach. We want to see the industry show leadership. That is the bottom line, Mr. Speaker. I said that to the industry when I consulted with them last year before my colleague agreed to bring in the amendments that we brought in, in a special session in February of last year. We demand and expect leadership of the industry. That means leadership from all sides of the industry: the union, the processors, the harvesters, everybody.

When Final Offer Selection worked in this Province, Mr. Speaker, it worked by the industry getting together, arriving at a negotiated framework agreement, usually this time of the year, putting protocols in place and agreeing to add on schedules, and agreeing to what species they would negotiate. All of that was done before Christmas so that all sides of the industry knew where it was heading into the new year. Mr. Speaker, that did not happen last year and it has not happened this year, despite the fact that I met with them only a few weeks ago and told them that: If you want to see the Legislature stay out of this then you had better show the leadership that will demand that we stay out of it. You had better show the leadership that is going to see framework agreements put in place, that is going to see protocols put in place as to what species the panel will have the right to decide on. If you are not going to do that, if you are going to leave this open to the Legislature and do nothing, then I am telling you now that the line is drawn in the sand. If you do nothing, if we hear nothing, if you make no undertakings, if you do not tell us that you are going to do something, then we are going to exert the leadership that is required and we will amend the legislation if we have to. We prefer not to, we do not want to do it, we prefer to stay out of it and leave the framework that is there now and let is work, but if you do not want to make it work, if you are not willing to make it work, then we will fine-tune it along the lines of the panel, that the panel requested, Mr. Speaker.

Before I sit down, I will say one other thing. The panel that we have, Joe O'Neill, the Chair of the Labour Relations Agency, a man who was foolish enough to answer my distress phone call when he was on a cruise down in the South Pacific somewhere with his wife a year or so ago and I said: Will you please chair this panel for us? When he got in port he called me back and said: Yes, Minister, I will do it - who gets nothing, he is a public employee anyway - who gets nothing for the headache that he is going through on this panel. I don't even know if he gets a lunch out of it - and Bill Wells and Max Short - where are you going to get a better panel? As far as I am concerned, it is a blue-ribbon panel.

What I am trying to say, Mr. Speaker, is, for those out there in the industry who might be inclined to criticize and ask for an independent panel, a panel that has nothing to do with the industry at all, I say: Beware of what you ask for. Beware of what you demand, Mr. Speaker, because this panel knows their business. This panel knows the industry. This panel knows all sides of the industry and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that they deserve the support of every one of us in this House.

When I see processors in particular, and when I hear of processors in particular making comments that this panel only have meetings so that they can get another per diem, Mr. Speaker, I question where those processors are in wanting to make the system work. It turns my stomach, to be frank with you, that this panel who cannot defend themselves - and should not have to defend themselves, because we will defend them - but this panel is a top-notch panel in terms of this industry and what they know about it and so on. They have no way to defend themselves, but to be open to that kind of criticism, Mr. Speaker, I think is insulting and falls below the dignity of the public process in this Province.

Joe O'Neill chairs this for nothing. The other two members of the panel, if they meet, get a per diem for meeting, and so they should. So they should get a per diem for meeting, and neither one of them, neither Bill Wells nor Max Short, when they come in the door to take their cheque for their work, deserve to back in. They should come in front on, and I want to tell them and tell the public of this Province that we have faith in them, we have confidence in them, and it is based on their recommendations, and how they see this matter unfolding, that this legislation is before the House today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The hon. the minister.

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

As you have seen, and as the Opposition Leader pointed out earlier, technically this comes under my department but obviously, from the last few words, my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, has taken the lead role on this particular piece of legislation and made some very good points. There were some points raised by members opposite and, of course, during Committee stage the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has some more issues to raise.

Mr. Speaker, as we have said, the tone of this piece of legislation, just from the short time we have been talking about it today, is talking about doing the changes, making the changes, making the enhancements, so that at the end of the day we have better legislation to deal with so that we can see this whole industry move forward. We all know about the challenges, especially people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and as rightly has been said before, how important the fishery is to this Province, and will be, and always will be, the backbone of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, these are to enhance and improve and move on. Who is to say that next year or the year after there will be more changes or tweaks to come again, because we know the challenges are out there, but at the same time I think the call today is talking about an industry who has to step up to the plate, who has to show leadership from all sides, to show that there is co-operation and a collaboration to move this industry forward and to be optimistic.

Yes, we have heard many challenges throughout the last number of months and so on, but it was even good just a few short months ago to hear some reports of hopefully better prices this year in the industry. So, we look forward to that with optimism, but these amendments are all about co-operation, enhancement and, of course, as the minister said, about leadership within the industry so that we move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to put forward these amendments today on behalf of my colleague, and I look forward to further debate in Committee stage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that second reading be approved on, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act? (Bill 69)

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 69)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 69, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, has been read a second time.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 69)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now call second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 And The Human Rights Code. (Bill 66)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 66, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 And The Human Rights Code, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 And The Human Rights Code." (Bill 66)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in the last session of the House we passed legislation, this House of Assembly passed legislation, which amended the Human Rights Code. There were a number of amendments made, but the one that I remember the most was the amendment that made it discriminatory to refuse to hire, or to continue to hire, someone solely on the basis that they had obtained the age of sixty-five years of age.

With the support of all hon. members in this House that legislation, in fact, passed, but in order to give employers time to adapt to the legislation, the legislation, or that particular section, will not be proclaimed until May of this year. We gave one year so employers could get ready for it.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the amendment, of course, is to recognize the value of older workers and to address concerns regarding discrimination that existed in employment on the basis of age. The bill that we are proposing today gives further evidence to government's commitment to older workers. In this case, recognizing the Province's judicial system would be well served by having the act amended to permit Provincial Court judges to retire, not at the age of sixty-five but at the age of seventy.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to second reading of this particular bill, Bill 66, which is, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 And The Human Rights Code. The legislation has been prepared in response to a request that was made to the Department of Justice by a Provincial Court judge here in St. John's and, subsequent to that letter from that judge, I met with the chief judge. I am not so sure of the timing. I met with the Chief Judge - I am not so sure of the timing - who indicated that judges would be in agreement. They felt, in consideration of the fact that mandatory retirement at sixty-five had ended and the fact that there does come a point when judges should step down in order to ensure renewal and revigoration and new ideas coming to the court, that seventy years of age would be the appropriate compromise.

I am most pleased to report today that government is in agreement with the request of the judges and the particular Provincial Court judge, and this Act will take action to allow judges to extend their judicial careers by five years.

The mandatory retirement age, Mr. Speaker, for Provincial Court judges is set out in the Provincial Court Act, 1991, and has been established at age sixty-five. A number of our judges are approaching that age, and, as I said, there has been a request from a judge in St. John's and from the Chief Judge, on behalf of the judges, for the department to allow them to remain on the bench for this additional period of time.

Mandatory retirement for Provincial Court judges is common throughout the country, even in jurisdictions which have eliminated mandatory retirement for the general civil service. The Province of P.E.I., Ontario and Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland of course, continue to set the mandatory retirement age for a Provincial Court judges at sixty-five years of age. However, the provinces of Nova Scotia, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia have mandatory retirement for judges five years later, at age seventy. Of course, Supreme Court judges, section 96 judges, judges appointed under section 96 of the Constitution of Canada, they retire at seventy-five years of age.

One interesting province is the Province of Manitoba, which has eliminated a mandatory retirement age for judges and leaves it to the judicial council of that province to make recommendations that judges retire. I did discuss this with the Chair of the Provincial Court Judges Council of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador who clearly indicated to me that was a role that the provincial judicial council did not wish to take on.

To respond favourable to the judges' request to increase their age of retirement, it would be both reasonable and responsible for this government and this House to raise the retirement age so as to be consistent with what is happening with the majority of other provinces. In increasing the mandatory retirement age for Provincial Court judges, government is aware that retaining a mandatory retirement age must be done in a manner that will not contravene the Province's human rights legislation. Therefore, as a necessary response to changing the retirement age in the Provincial Court Act, government is also proposing a consequential amendment to the Human Rights Code to provide that the code shall not be infringed upon should a judge be required to retire upon reaching a higher retirement age.

Mr. Speaker, judges, of course, play a very important role in our society. They have been tasked with making decisions which affect the lives of all citizens. It is important to the public, Mr. Speaker, that the public have confidence that our provincial court bench is a constantly renewing institution with more or new generational ideas, so that new ideas are reflected in that institution. Of course, the only way to do that is to have a reasonable date when judges should be expected to step down to allow for this renewal of the institution. We are not focusing on the individual, to require a retirement of an individual. Of course, individuals are different. Some of them are quite vigorous at seventy, and others, of course, are not, so we are not focusing on the individual. The focus is on the institution, which must maintain the confidence of the public.

It is not unreasonable, in order to ensure confidence of the public, to require that at a certain point in time a judge step down. While seventy or any other number is an arbitrary number, it obviously depends on an individual judge, but according to the Chief Judge, seventy is a reasonable compromise, and I understand that this is acceptable to the Provincial Court judges here.

I want to emphasize that I am not saying, and I am not suggesting, that a judge beyond the age of seventy is not competent but it is important that the bench renews itself and revigorates itself. The confidence of the public requires that we ensure that we have a vigorous bench with a re-infusion of new blood from time to time to keep the bench with both younger and older judges. There should be a point when judges should step down so new ones can be appointed, and that will bring about different generation ideas.

Mr. Speaker, I would therefore move passage of this particular piece of legislation.

Before I sit, Mr. Speaker, there is something I have to say. Earlier in Question Period I was asked a question by the hon. Member for Bay of Islands, and I think there were two supplementaries. It was about the awarding of a contract at the Labrador Correctional Centre in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I indicated in my answers to that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We are at second reading and the minister, if he is going to speak to that particular matter, will have to relate it to the bill under discussion. I would suggest, perhaps, that he might want to hold that discussion until another time in the proceedings.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I realize in second reading you do give a lot of breadth and width to debate, but I would think that the minister was about to encroach on an area where it would have been quite a stretch to get to relevance, from a Provincial Court Judge Act to the tendering of a contract, but I am sure there is a way to do it. If you want to take a moment while I am having a few words and think about it, by all means go ahead.

I appreciate an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to have a few words on this. Someone suggested that this was the Parsons bill, because they said he will be at least seventy before he ever gets to the bench. In any case, someone else said it was the Monaghan bill because Mr. Monaghan, of course, was appointed this past summer, or past spring I guess it was, to the Provincial Court bench is in his sixties. I do believe Mr. Monaghan was sixty-three or sixty-four when he got appointed. Somebody said: Well, maybe it was done for his benefit. I am sure that could not be the case, because seventy in not going to do it for Mr. Monaghan in terms of accumulating the fifteen years that you need under the current legislation to get a pension out of this.

In any case, I had a couple of questions here for the minister. I am somewhat befuddled as to what the purpose is. You say on the one hand that you are dealing with renewal of the bench, you are dealing with this as an institutional piece, but it is my understanding that this is being done for one person and one person only at this point. I would like to know if that is indeed the case. I am not suggesting, of course, that the House should not, from time to time, consider particular individual circumstances if it is warranted. We have done it here before in cases of, I do believe, presidents of the nurses' union. We have probably done it in the case of persons who were presidents of the NLTA, but it is one or the other. I do not think it is both in this case. It is my understanding that this is being done because of one particular individual case. I think we ought to be upfront, open and transparent, as you say, in doing that. If there is no reason why it cannot be, particularly - you can hide behind privacy laws, I guess, if you want but if someone has asked this government to take it upon the government to change a law specifically to accommodate a court judge, a particular individual, I think that person is in and of itself suggesting that, well, privacy is not an issue.

I would like to know if there are indeed particular circumstances which warrant us being here. In fact, I am not in a position at this point to say aye or nay to it. I have no problem with the human rights piece that is attached to this bill, but I have a problem with that issue of, every judge shall retire upon attaining the age of seventy years, which is taking it from sixty-five, as I understand it under the current law, to seventy. That is going to be for every judge, as it says, but I understand it is not being done for every judge. That is the way it had to be done, to say every judge, but I understand the actual motive and intent here was to do it for a particular judge.

If it is for an individual purpose and not for an institutional purpose, I think we ought to know that. I think people have right to know that. Maybe there are some medical reasons. Maybe there are some legitimate reasons to do that. I am certainly not prepared, if that is the circumstance, to vote aye for a bill that we have not been given all the facts for. I do not think that is an unreasonable request, who asked for it and what are the circumstances pertaining to it.

The other piece I would like to know is: What is the impact of this change going to be on the provincial court judges' pension plan? It is my understanding that under that plan - and by the way, we had tribunals done and overturned in this Province for a long time, from the early 1990s I believe, going back to Premier Wells' day, until finally under Premier Grimes we had the tribunal that deals with benefits and pensions and whatever for provincial court judges adopted by this House. That was alluded to last week actually when we dealt with a provincial court matter here then.

My understanding is that pensions and so on constituted probably the most complex part of that tribunal. I know there were issues there about compensation for judges, but the pensions benefit was also a piece of it, because we had persons who became judges, for example, who worked in the public sector. I do believe, for example, the former Deputy Minister of Justice became a provincial court judge. The question became: How do we mishmash everybody? Some were school teachers, some were social workers, some were lawyers in private industry and some were from public sector. A big piece of the tribunal thing was putting together the pension plan.

My concern here is: How is this changing of the age from sixty-five to seventy for retirement going to impact the provincial court judges' plan? Is it going to be a negative impact? Is it going to be a positive impact? Does it mean that from here on in for every judge who decides he is going to work five years extra that this Province is going to have put more obviously into that pension plan? It is my understanding as well that when you retire your pension is based upon your contributions to the plan during your last five years and it is based upon your earnings, you highest earnings, which would be the last five years, presumably.

I am wondering: Has there been any thought put into this by the Department of Justice. All I have heard from the minister is that we have had a request from an individual and we have had that request sanctioned by the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court. I do not know any other details beyond that. I think we need to know. The last count I knew was that we had twenty-four Provincial Court judges in this Province. If every one of them decides, we are going to work five years extra, what is the impact to the Provincial Treasury? Are we trying to accomplish one goal for one individual here, which may be a very worthwhile and laudable goal, but at the same time we have not thought about the impact on the pension plan? Which brings me to the point again: If that is the case, why are we even dealing here with the issue of age? Why shouldn't the issue of age for Provincial Court judges be put to the tribunal.

The minister and I have stood on the floor of this House several times and talked about the independence of the judiciary and the need for these tribunals because they are independent. They deal with everything; the benefits for them, the pensions for them, down to how much clothing they get each year, and how much mileage they get. Yet a very important essential piece dealing with Provincial Court judges, when they have to stop work and retire, we are going to deal with here on the floor of the House.

I did not hear any comments from the minister that the tribunal was asked to look at this. If they looked at every other issue and benefit concerning Provincial Court judges, why shouldn't the retirement age be referred to the tribunal also. I do not think that is an unreasonable request. In fact, I query whether the minister, given the independence piece - I query whether the government should be deciding when judges retire. I query whether we do have an issue here. We have argued for years and years about the judges and the judges have argued for years and years about their independence, and here we are today, we are going to have the Minister of Justice stand up here and we are going to say: Okay, you do not have to retire now until you are seventy. There is something definitely wrong with that picture.

You cannot take 99.9 per cent of the rules, the regulations, and the benefits concerning the independent judiciary and deal with it in a tribunal format and yet take this most important piece out and say, we are going to decide. Sure, if that is the way it works, technically speaking - and I am sure this would never happen - but theoretically the Minister of Justice could come back here next year if he wants to clean out the bench and say, we are going to pass a law saying that they all have to retire at forty-two. Well I will tell you, you will wipe her out if that is the case. You will wipe her out pretty good if you say they have to retire at forty-two.

I would think that is a pretty important piece. I am sure the judges down there do not want the minister over here coming in next year saying, we are going to make a law now that you all have to go at forty-two. We are going to have some problem. You talk about your renewal of the institution then, Minister. You will have an overnight renewal if that is what you call renewal.

There is something fundamentally wrong with this process here and I think the minister should reconsider. It is not a case of opposing what you are doing, I just think there are some very legitimate questions here that need to be asked. This tribunal by the way, these people, this was not a voluntary thing. There were experts from both sides who formulated this tribunal. The government put a person there and the Provincial Court bench put a person there and between them they chose a chair, and it cost thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to do that. Yet the most basic element, the one where you have to quit work, they have not had an opportunity to deal with, I would suggest. They have not had an opportunity to even talk about it. If you are going to talk about it and you are going to change it, I think it is incumbent upon government to say, whoa, we will withdraw this. Let us go talk to the appropriate people. Otherwise the whole issue of independence and the tribunal is a sham.

I ask the minister again, and probably it is the Minister of Finance who could shed more light on this, but I ask the minister about the issue of how the extension of age from sixty-five to seventy will impact the Provincial Court judge's plan. What does that mean in terms of dollars to the provincial Treasury and so on, because say I have my fifteen years and I can go when I am sixty-five and I am going to walk out the door with a certain amount of money, but all of a sudden this bill becomes law and I said, well, I am not going home, it is not so stressful after all. I think I am going to stick around for another five years. So, I stay around for five years . Do I have to continue making my contributions under the plan because according to the law I only had to do it for fifteen years? I am eligible to go, I have my pension paid up, but I am going to stay around for five more years. What are the rules and regulations around that piece? Do I sit for five more years and collect my salary but not have to make contributions to the plan? Yet, when I go at the age of seventy, at what rate do I take: up to the point where I accumulated at sixty-five, or do I take based upon my five best years, which I presume would have been between sixty-five and seventy? I think that is a pretty reasonable question to ask.

I am saying to the minister: I think, given that pensions formulated such an important piece of the tribunal to make this passage into law of this bill here, from sixty-five to seventy, without having considered those things I think we are walking down a slippery slope here from two regards. Number one, we do not know the financial impact of it. Number two, we have an issue with the judiciary piece and the tribunal piece. I just think it needs some further thought in that regard.

The other piece I ask - and I say these things, by the way, not because the minister is trying to pull one over on anybody. Obviously, that is not the case. I believe that someone in good faith asked the minister if this could be done, and the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court said: Yes, we will see what we can do for you.

I have no problem with that, and that may be for legitimate reasons, but I do think that these are legitimate concerns as well, and by trying to solve one problem we may, in fact, create a massive problem on the other side. Let's just take the time. I believe a job worth doing is worth doing well. We do not need to be back here next year untangling a web that we weaved when we were made aware of it up front.

The other question I had for the minister is - and, again, I do not know, everybody is different. We have lived with sixty-five at least since 1991, I do believe, as a retirement age for judges, and it is always arbitrary. The federal government, or section 96's as we call them - they are appointed by the federal government - their law says they do not have to retire until they are seventy-five. Some Provincial Court judges across Canada retire at seventy.

My question again is: What input has been solicited from anyone, and from whom, to choose seventy as the right age for our judges? I think there ought to be some information on that. In fact, that is why I raised the question of the tribunal again; because I am sure if the tribunal looked at this question and this issue of what age Provincial Court judges should retire, or ought to retire, number one, they probably would solicit an opinion from all of the existing twenty-four judges, not just the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court. They would probably solicit an opinion from the tribunal, to get some input from them. They would probably ask the Canadian Bar Association. They would probably ask the Newfoundland and Labrador Law Society. So, I think here I have not heard any indication - maybe the minister consulted with all these people, but all I heard was that he talked to the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court. I think there have to be more comprehensive provisions done into this as to why seventy.

Now I am not saying, by the way - the minister made a comment saying that anyone over seventy, that does not necessarily mean you are incompetent. Of course it doesn't. I have met judges who were fifty and incompetent, and I have met some who were sixty-five and in the spry of their life, but that is a matter of human nature. That is an individual thing. I am sure there are persons on the bench today who could well be judges when they are in their nineties, from a mental and acuity point of view, and be able to understand and render good, sound, legal judgements.

I have no problem, either, with saying that because you are a certain age you have to get out the door - that is not an issue - but let's pick the age based upon consulting with these people and consulting with other people in the industry to find out what would be an acceptable age.

I am also wondering - and, again, I refer this to the Minister of Finance because I am sure it is going to impact his shop - this thing about changing the dates for retirement here in the Province. I would say to the Minister of Finance, I do not know the status right now and maybe he could inform me and educate me a bit in this regard.

For example, as I understand it, the standard retirement age for a public servant in the Province right now is sixty-five, and I understand that there was some consideration being given to removing that sixty-five age limit from the other workers in the public service. Now, I do not think it is done yet, but my understanding is that government were contemplating doing it. If that is the case, and on the assumption that all current public servants in this Province shall, under the current law, retire at age sixty-five, I raise the spectre of: What are we doing by changing one law, one particular law, to allow judges to retire at age seventy?

I raise that from the point of view, I say to the Minister of Justice, from the human rights perspective, because we cannot discriminate based on age, as I understand it. We dealt with that today in the Ministerial Statement about the Human Rights declaration, and one of the reason and grounds we cannot discriminate upon is age. So, I say to the minister, how can we be saying in this Province: Everybody else, you have to go home at sixty-five, but we are going to pass a special law saying: Judges, you don't have to go home until seventy.

It is not something that always existed. We are now, today, going to make a law giving special preference to a group. I think that, in and of itself, might be discriminatory. I say to the minister, I think the fact that we are now singling out today a group - as I understand it, right now everybody retires at sixty-five. All of a sudden, we live under a law called the Human Rights Act or Code which says, you cannot discriminate based on age, and we are going to turn around and single out Provincial Court judges and say: You twenty-four people, out of the 517,000 of us who are here - if there are that many here - are going to have a special status. You do not have to retire until you are seventy.

I say to the minister, I think there is a problem with that. I think that is discriminatory. Just saying in your act that it is not discriminatory will not cut it. I do not think because you are putting in clause 2 saying this is not going to be discrimination under the Human Rights Code is sufficient. It is not as it you had started out with these different age limits and you were trying to bring them all into sync now. You are actually taking what is in sync and putting it out of sync by giving twenty-four people a certain status when it comes to their retirement, their employability, their employment status, so I raise that question.

The other issue I raise, and it may be for the Minister of Finance as well: How is this impacting from an overall pension point of view? For example, do we have - we know we have separate pension plans for the judges versus for the rest of the public sector, but is it an issue now that we are going to allow twenty-four people to work beyond sixty-five to age seventy, and therefore are they getting more out of their pension plan by being allowed to stay on for five years than the person who had to go home at sixty-five? I do not know, is that discriminatory? These are figures we need to know. The minister says I have it mixed up. That is why I stand to be educated.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think it is based on an individual purpose. I think the minister should tell us that individual purpose. I think this thing has far-ranging effects. I think we have an issue here with the tribunal not being consulted. Let the tribunal decide it. I have absolutely no problem - if the minister refers this off to a tribunal and the tribunal comes back next week and says, we looked at it, they looked it, we think it is the right thing; I have no problem. I think we have done a great disservice to the tribunal set up right here and the independence of the judiciary by having government take it upon themselves to decide what the pension age is going to be.

Thank you.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just answer questions from the Opposition House Leader pertaining to finance and the pension part. I am sure my colleague, the Minister of Justice, in closing can certainly address that.

What it is intended to do overall - and I will just mention generally first. When the bill passed last spring, the human rights about age discriminatory that was passed here in the Legislature last spring, we have one year from the time that it is, I guess, proclaimed. I think one year is the date when that would kick in; by next spring. Between then and now, for the whole public service in here, because of that bill we would have to move, so it would not be discriminatory, to do the same for all employees of government. It is our intention to bring a bill to the House in the spring to do what we did with the whole human rights, generally. That would be for employees of government, and that will happen in the spring session of the House.

On the pension aspect with judges, what they would do now - they get a maximum pension of sixty-six-and-two-thirds percent, if they worked fifteen years. If they work twenty, they will still get sixty-six and two thirds, but a lot of judges do not get fifteen years and, obviously, do not get the maximum. You cannot go beyond the maximum of twenty years. You still only get your sixty-six and two thirds.

MR. PARSONS: (Inaudible) percentage of it greater or less, based on your best five years?

MR. SULLIVAN: Actually, with judges, my understanding is it is just their salary at retirement, not five years. That is the way it is now, my understanding of judges. That has been in for some time, to my knowledge. Whatever it is anyway - I guess the point we are debating, yes, they will continue to contribute, I guess as long as they are not up to the maximum, I would assume. The maximum is twenty years. They would continue to earn benefits, yes, but cannot exceed the maximum at which they are allowed to receive a pension.

The same as a Member of the House of Assembly, obviously, could keep contributing beyond seventy-five. Lots of people who came from other occupations and so on, they are maxed out on their MHAs now for a number of years, lots are and so on, traditionally. They cannot go beyond that two thirds. By working an extra five years, obviously you are paying more into the pension plan and you are going to have five less years to draw a pension, assuming you are going to die at the same age.

From a financial perspective it is not significant. If you are going to live to be ninety and you retire at sixty-five, you will have twenty-five years drawing a pension. If you work to seventy, you will have twenty years. Now, you might draw higher, yes, but you are paying more into the amount and you will not exceed the two thirds that you are entitled to draw. That is from the financial aspect of it.

As for the retirement, discriminatory and all that aspect; certainly that is the Minister of Justice's area. I will not proclaim to be an expert and comment on that, but my understanding of that - I will leave that to the minister there, but I have my own view on it. I am sure it is compatible with his.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader has already spoken. I assume he is asking leave to ask another question.

MR. PARSONS: (Inaudible) clarification of the minister's explanation.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I do not mind. There is still some time in Committee, I would assume (inaudible). If he is going to go on to anything serious, I would certainly like to in Committee, but if he just has a question, I am agreeable, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted for the hon. the member to ask a question.

The Chair recognizes the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate leave from the Government House Leader.

I understand the circumstance you related here about saying they can go to a max of twenty years. My understanding of the Provincial Court Judges' Act right now is they have to work fifteen to qualify. The can work for up to twenty to max their benefits. It is my understanding that it is the percentage that is maxed, not the amount. For example, it is sixty-six and one-third per cent of your last five years. The person who works from sixty-five to seventy, under this new law, I would presume - because there is going to be at least another tribunal report in that five-year period - if their salary when they were sixty-five was say $200,000, by the time they get to seventy when they retire their salary is probably going to be more than that.

What I am saying is, it does have a financial impact. If the percentage they are maxed out on their percentage is sixty-six and one-third, that is fine. It is easy to say they are maxed out but they are not maxed out in terms of the cost to the Treasury. The cost to the Treasury when they are at sixty-five and the cost to the Treasury when they are seventy could be quite substantial, depending on how much their salary went up from sixty-five to seventy. That is the point I am making there.

The other point is - and I think this is important and we just cannot gloss over this. I know, for example, a judge who was appointed at the age of forty-two. Now, he is forty-two years old. If he works for twenty years, that makes him sixty-two. He is maxed out pension wise. He is going to get his sixty-six and one-third per cent of his salary, but he is going to stay on, we will say, until seventy. He is going to work for eight more years. My question is: You are suggesting that person who has already contributed for twenty years to his pension plan, who is maxed out on what he is going to get back from his pension, sixty-six and two-thirds or whatever, he is going to have to contribute to that pension plan for another eight years?

MR. SULLIVAN: That is not what I said.

MR. PARSONS: Okay, that is what I am trying to clarify, because that certainly would not seem to me - I know under the MHA's plan, I understand that is not how it happens. You might max out, but once you are maxed out on what you are going to get, you do not have to contribute anymore. I raise this issue because in that circumstance you have that person working for eight years beyond their maximum contributions to their pension. The issue becomes again, when he goes to seventy, surely eight years after his maximum period, is he going to get sixty-six and two-thirds then of what the salary is when he is seventy, or when he was sixty-two?

All I am saying is, we have spent years and years, literally years, trying to figure out the Provincial Court Judges Pension Plan. We have had actuaries in here. I know personally I have met with actuaries myself and the people in the Department of Justice for five years trying to figure out this level of detail. Even after the tribunal came back with their report there were months and months of experts, pension experts and actuaries, determining what that was going to translate into in terms of a pension plan. All I am saying is, these are legitimate questions. We do not know the impact of this change here today upon that pension plan and we are doing it outside of the tribunal. I just think this is so important, that we do not leave egg on our faces when this gets passed and somebody says: Whoa, just a minute now. You should have at least asked us about this. I think we are in violation of what the intent is of the tribunals if we do not do this. That is all I am suggesting. I think these are legitimate questions. I do not know the answers.

For the Minister of Finance even - and I appreciate your clarification - but I am just saying, I do not think it is something that the Minister of Finance, as smart as you are -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: And all knowing, and I agree with that. I do not think you, Sir, can stand up here today and give a suitable explanation to answer those legitimate questions. I am just saying we need the answers before, I think, anybody gets on this slippery slope.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, just with leave, Mr. Speaker. I think leave was agreed to earlier.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I do understand.

MR. SULLIVAN: As an MHA - I will use the comparison you raised, that issue. If an MHA maxes out they do not pay premiums, I think you indicated, but if they maxed out and they stayed for five years later and then retired, they would pay it based on their last three years; not the last three years before they maxed out, but based on their last three years. That is basically my understanding. I will make a call and confirm it. My understanding on this is that judges pensions is not their best five years. That is my understanding. As an MHA it is your best three, the average of your best three. I think the general public service is an average of five. I think with judges it is your salary until the time you retire, my knowledge of the act there. I will certainly check and correct that, but that is my understanding of it.

Regardless of what it is, that is not really the question you were asking. The question you were asking was: Will it be based on their salary at retirement? My answer to that is, I understand that, yes, it will be based on their salary; they retire at seventy. If they maxed in twenty years of contributing, they will not pay beyond that, but -

MR. PARSONS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, here is where the actuarial costs - because the person would be paying, would be drawing a pension for five years less because they worked five longer and therefore on an actuarial basis, if a person is going to live for fifteen years after he retires, and he works for five more, we would assume on the expectancy he will live for ten years now, after he retires, as opposed to fifteen, unless by working it is going to make you live longer, and I do not have any information to say that, but -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: If not, we would all work forever. We would all work forever, Mr. Speaker, if that was the case, nobody would ever want to quit work, but I think I have answered your question. I will just make sure that is correct. When we get to Committee, I will put it on the record, that is the fact as I give it to you, if that is fine?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is fine.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, thank you.

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

If the hon. the minister speaks now he will close debate at second reading.

The hon. the minister.

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

I would like to address - first of all, I thank the Minister of Finance for his comments on how the pensions will be affected by this. It has certainly been my understanding that there will not be a major effect on the pension plan but this truly will be something that will be considered by the tribunal when they next do consider the Judges' Pension Plan.

Again, of course, obviously this would have to be referred to the tribunal. This is a matter that, as I said, originated with a request from a Provincial Court judge, and the Opposition House Leader did indicate that he would like to know who that was.

I have a letter; I will read the letter. It is dated October 25, 2006. It is addressed to me, as minister, and it says: As you are aware, section 12 of the Provincial Court Act of 1991 sets forth that a Provincial Court judge should retire at age sixty-five. The Human Rights Code has been amended to delete the referenced age; however, the amendment does not come into effect until May of 2007. Your government has shown a progressive attitude toward the issue of mandatory retirement and has implemented real change for older workers. Unfortunately, as I will be sixty-five on 25 January 2007, I will not be able to avail of that change unless the necessary changes are made to the Provincial Court Act in the fall sitting of the House. Failing that, I will have no choice but to seek redress for having being statutorily retired through the Human Rights Commission and/or a charter challenge. If you wish to discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Mr. Speaker, rather than give the judge's name, that is from a judge who sits here in the City of St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, as the Opposition House Leader also indicated, I did discuss this with the chief judge and I am advised by my officials that the chief judge has indicated that the age of seventy is acceptable to the Provincial Court judges. Again, of course, as the hon. member indicated, this, in fact, is something that will have to go to the tribunal.

Given the fact that the government is prepared to accept an increase in the mandatory retirement age for Provincial Court judges from sixty-five to seventy, and in view of the fact that it has been indicated to me that the judges accept seventy, even though some judge could conceivably at some point in the future challenge that on the basis of a charter challenge, one would expect that the tribunal, after hearing from the representatives of government and the Provincial Court judges, might agree. As I indicated, it is a matter that will, in fact, go to the tribunal.

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition House Leader also talked about: this legislation could give special status to twenty-four judges. In fact, it does the opposite; because, what we did here in the last session of the House is, we said that it is now discriminatory, it is now discrimination, to refuse to hire somebody or to refuse to continue to hire somebody in employment merely because that person happened to be sixty-five years of age. That means that mandatory retirement in this Province, once this legislation is proclaimed - and, as I said earlier, it will be proclaimed in May of next year - that means that no one who does not want to quit will have to retire at the age of sixty-five. Of course, since that is coming in - and that will come in, in May - with respect to judges, if we are going to have that same principle apply to them, there will be no mandatory retirement for judges. What we are doing, rather than giving them a special status - we are doing the exact opposite - we are still requiring, in spite of the amendment to the Human Rights Code, that judges do have to retire at a certain time. Now, you can pick any number. It could be sixty-five, it could be seventy, it could be seventy-five. I do not know what it should be, but the feeling was, given the fact that mandatory retirement for everyone else has been removed and that we are maintaining a mandatory retirement age for judges, that a bump to seventy would appear to be reasonable. The judges feel comfortable with this. They have indicated they would be very happy with this, and that is the age we predict.

As the Minister of Finance indicated, the Department of Finance does not have a lot of concern with the pension implications of this bump. There are concerns, of course, with the fact that, under the long-term disability, given the fact that judges will not have to retire for five years later, there will, in fact, or there could be, impacts on the long-term disability provisions. If we are going to adopt the principle of elimination of mandatory retirements, but with judges we are going to have them retire at seventy for the reasons I outlined when I moved reading of this bill, that it is important to renew the bench, that it is important that the institution renew itself and revigorate itself from time to time with some new ideas, accordingly I move second reading of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 66, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 And The Human Rights Code, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 And The Human Rights Code. (Bill 66)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 66, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 And The Human Rights Codes, has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House?

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 And The Human Rights Codes, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 66)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the House now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House to consider a number of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I put that motion, I would like to welcome into the public gallery Lori Humber, Executive Director of the Schizophrenia Society of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Geoff Chaulk, who is the Executive Director of the Canadian Mental Health Association. These persons are in the gallery, I do believe, for Committee reading of Bill 61, and we welcome them to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 66, 69 and 61, and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, on a point of order.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Chair, earlier today in Question Period I was asked a question by the hon. Member for Bay of Islands on the awarding of a contact at the Labrador Correctional Centre in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I indicated to the hon. member that I was not familiar with the tender and that I would check into it with my officials and then report back to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have been advised by the hon. Member for Exploits that he had raised this with me at some point and had given me some materials, which I passed on to the officials in my department. I understand the officials looked at the issue and spoke to the woman in question and then wrote the woman in question. I did not recall that, and I still do not recall it. The officials are now gathering that information so I can make a report to the House. I wanted to disclose that to the House, as soon as I became aware of the fact that someone had raised this with me. I wanted to make sure that the House was aware of that. My officials are still looking into it and when we get the complete story, I will be back here in the House and give a full report.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order. It is a point of information.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now will call Bill 61, An Act Respecting Mental Health Care And Treatment.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Bill 61, An Act Respecting Mental Health Care And Treatment.

A bill, "An Act Respecting Mental Health Care And Treatment." (Bill 61)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 41.

CHAIR: Clauses 1 to 41.

Shall clauses 1 to 41 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

Mr. Chair, I just wanted to stand and raise a couple of -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

I just wanted to stand and raise a couple of points, and to welcome our guests from the Canadian Mental Health Association and the Schizophrenia Society of Newfoundland and Labrador to the gallery as well, and to thank them for their patience. It seems that members on both sides of the House were far more talkative today than we had anticipated and we had the individuals in the gallery here a little bit earlier today than perhaps necessary, as we felt that this legislation would be in Committee perhaps a little bit earlier than it has.

Mr. Chair, I believe that this is a very progressive piece of legislation. I have spoken with the health critic, as well as the Leader of the NDP, and both feel that it is a very progressive piece of legislation. It has been thirty-five years in the making, Mr. Chair. In fact, the old legislation even outdates the Charter of Freedoms and Rights, so it really was needed.

The legislation that we are bringing to the House creates a number of protections for individuals. It outlines very clearly the rights of individuals who are going to be hospitalized as a result of a mental illness or a mental disorder and, Mr. Chair, those who are going to be hospitalized involuntarily. It allows for a rights advisor. It also ensures that individuals need two assessments, as opposed to the old system. The new system will require that one of those assessments is by a psychiatrist. All cases, Mr. Chair, of individuals who are being held involuntarily will go to a review within sixty days, and any individual at any time prior to the sixty days, or their family or their rights advisor, their representative, can apply for review prior to that, and it also allows for appeals under the new legislation, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, this has received consultation, very wide consultation, including by stakeholders, including by psychiatrists and medical professionals. It is a very necessary piece of legislation. I think most stakeholders, Mr. Chair, are very pleased, in fact, with the legislation that we are bringing forward today.

I understand that there is one amendment to the legislation and it is under clause 42. The Leader of the NDP had raised a concern that she had, wanting to see some additional wording within the legislation. I had officials within my department put together some wording, and we have been back and forth, some wording that would seek to put into the legislation and address the concerns of the Leader of the NDP. I think the officials and my department have successfully come up with the wording that does that. The Leader of the NDP is pleased with that, and I believe the amendment will be raised on the floor again this afternoon.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to certainly have a few words with regard to Bill 61.

No doubt, the minister is correct, this is welcomed legislation in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As you know, the Mental Health Act has probably been in place, the one we have, for thirty-one years, I think it was, and there were certainly changes that needed to take place with regard to legislation. It was quite evident for all of us, I guess, since 2003, after the Reid-Power inquiry was done, and the recommendations in that particular document outlined a number of legislative changes that need to take place with regard to the Mental Health Act in Newfoundland and Labrador, and indeed to mental health services throughout the Province.

Mr. Chairman, no doubt, this is welcomed by a lot of people in the medical profession. I think the minister has already talked to, as he said, psychiatrists, people with the Mental Health Association themselves, and so on.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to point out there are a couple of questions that I have with regard to the bill. It certainly does not, in any way, shroud the fact that I think this is a good piece of legislation. There are just some questions that I feel I would like to have some answers to as we debate this in the Committee stages of the bill.

I think that people need to realize that there are still a lot of people out there in our Province who suffer from mental illness. Many of them do not voluntarily seek the kind of medical therapies and treatments that they need. While 85 per cent of those people who suffer from mental illness, whether it be schizophrenia, bipolarism, or depression of some sort do seek, on a volunteer basis, the treatment and remedies that they need, there is still 15 per cent of the population who normally do not, who need these kinds of clinical interventions, and because of that they are involuntarily placed for treatment. That is why it is necessary to have an act like Bill 61 to be able to govern that kind of involuntary treatment that is being sought on behalf of those people to ensure that their rights and that their privileges are upheld and that there are regulations in place to be able to guard against any offence that could take place while they were seeking that treatment.

When I was going through the briefing, I was absolutely amazed to learn that there were about 500 cases a year where someone is hospitalized involuntarily. That was an astounding number of cases. I guess some of them could be repeat individuals as well, so I will not say that it is individuals, but it was certainly an alarmingly high number. I also learned that most of the people who are involuntarily seeking treatment for mental illness often stay in a psychiatric hospital - and in our Province that would be the Waterford Hospital or the Health Sciences Centre - often stay for a period of approximately two weeks while they seek the help of caseload workers and psychiatrists and mental health professionals and also, I guess, are prescribed certain drugs and medications to help them with that particular illness. I also learned that 10 per cent of these individuals could be in hospital for up to eight weeks at a time seeking the kind of treatments that they need, so it is important, I think, to have legislation that would certainly govern those types of individuals who are placed involuntarily for treatment.

As well, Mr. Chairman, it is not easy on families. As I said in second reading of the bill, and I will not talk as extensively today in Committee as I did then, but in the second reading of the bill I did indicate that mental illness does not just affect the individual but it affects the entire family and, as we have seen, it affects the community in general in this Province. It is very frustrating for families, especially when you know that a loved one is mentally ill and needs a certain kind of treatment and will not voluntarily seek that treatment, so it causes a tremendous amount of stress on families because they are left with the onus and the burden of trying to get the kind of treatment for their loved ones that they want. It not only affects the individual person's health and their own happiness and well being, but also that, in many cases, of family and friends who are around them, because they often have that struggle as well.

Of course, Mr Chair, we all know what happens when individuals who need treatment for mental illness go without it. There are a lot of people who do not accept the voluntary treatment as it is prescribed or available to them in our Province. I guess, because of that they are often abandoned to the consequences of their own actions towards themselves or towards society. That is exactly what we see in the case of the Power-Reid inquiry; the Power case, of course, being in Corner Brook and the situation with Mr. Reid in the Bonavista area. I am trying to think of the name of the community right now. I think everyone knows to which I am referring.

AN HON. MEMBER: In Little Catalina.

MS JONES: Yes, in Little Catalina.

Mr. Chair, it is a lesson, I think, for all of us to have to deal with mental illness in our families, in our communities, or even us as legislators, or in the case of the minister who has an onus and a burden and a responsibility to be answerable to those kinds of inquiries and the recommendations that they put forward.

Mr. Chair, on that note, there are a couple of things that I want to outline as it relates to this particular bill. When I was reading through the recommendations of the Power-Reid inquiry, one of the things that was very noteworthy to me was the fact that they had recommended that there be a certain amount of training for police officers. Of course, if you go back through the information that was provided in that inquiry and the circumstances that surround it, the deaths of both of these individuals, you would understand why it would be so important for the police to be not only sensitized to this mental illness, but also to have the ability and the training to be able to identify a person who suffers from mental illness and to know what the appropriate course of action would be when encountering a situation like that. That was one of the key recommendations in this report.

I know that the bill does say there are expanded roles for peace officers, for mental health nurses and for nurse practitioners as a part of the legislation, but I am not entirely clear as to how the training component of it will fit into this bill, or if it does indeed. I think it is important that, based on the recommendation and based on the circumstances which surrounded the Norman Reid case and the Darren Power case, in particular, that police officers and RNC officers should receive the kind of training that is required and recommended here. That would be training to be able to not only identify the environment in which they may be responding to a person of mental illness but also to know what the course of action would be in terms of, how do you deal with an individual like this, who do you contact, what supports or backup do you need in terms of being able to deal with that in particular. Maybe when the minister is ready he could provide me with an overview of how that is going to be addressed as part of this particular piece of legislation. I do not know if he wants me to outline a number of the concerns that I have or if he just wants to do it one particular piece at a time.

That was one of the things that was raised in this report and I felt that it was important enough that it should have been addressed in the legislation. I guess I am wondering if there is a way that it is addressed some other way. I do not know if you, Minister, wanted to respond to that now or if you wanted me to conclude with the other pieces first.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Okay, he will respond when I am finished.

I think it is important that police officers would know the various symptoms of mental illness, especially when they are called to a crime scene or called to a scene as they were in the case of Norman Reid, and that they be able to conclude that the person is apparently disoriented or disorderly and be able to identify that, and also to be able to identify the proper medical care that would need to be sought in a case like that.

Mr. Chair, that was one of the questions that I had with regard to this bill. There are a couple of others that I have as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: I think the minister missed my comment, so I will outline it again and I will do it briefly.

In the Reid-Power inquiry, one of the recommendations was that police officers should receive a certain kind of training and not just with regard to a sensitization training of dealing with people with mental illness. I think if you refer back, Minister, to the circumstances that prompted the Reid-Power inquiry and the details that surrounded those two particular instances, you would understand why it was important that there be a program in place for the RCMP and the RNC for them to receive the kind of training that was felt necessary.

One of the recommendations, I guess, felt that without any undue delay, all police officers should receive a certain amount of training so that they would not only be able to identify the various symptoms of mental illness, but they would be able to conclude that the person who they are dealing with is apparently disorderly and to the point that they may need certain medical care, and to be able to identify what medical care they would require and be able to call for those particular supports.

Now, I did not see anything particularly around that in the Act. It does not mean it is not covered in another way and it certainly does not mean that it is not covered under another piece of legislation within the Legislature and within the Department of Justice. Because it was one of the key recommendations, I am trying to ensure that it has been covered off in one way or another.

The other concern that I have was with regard to community treatment. Now, first of all, I want to say that I think this is an excellent concept that has been added to the legislation. I think it is really important that the gap between the institution and the community be bridged, and that was one of the issues with regard to the Norman Reid inquiry, is that, that gap existed . Often when the patient was released from the Waterford Hospital, they were sent back home and the environment in which they were living was not necessarily acceptable.

I think if you remember from the inquiry, there was a letter that was written from a nurse to the social worker in that area outlining that concern, and that Mr. Reid was actually been placed back into the community and back into his own house where he had absolutely no electricity, where he was using a candle for light, where he had no oil in his oil stove, where he had less than acceptable footwear or clothing for the type of climate, and also he was being placed where he had no companionship in terms of family or friends who would spend time with him or be around him. He was very much left to his own devises. In fact, I think they even highlighted in the letter that his only source of diversion in his home was a battery operated radio that he had.

That was a huge issue with regard to Mr. Reid's situation, the fact that he was released on numerous accounts from the Waterford Hospital after being treated and after being placed into a drug therapy program to help him with his illness and then he went back into an environment that was less than acceptable for the type of illness that he was suffering from.

I think, Minister, certainly the amendment that you have made to section 42 of the bill, I am pleased to see that you did that and I congratulate those who were involved because I think section 42 of this bill will speak directly to the recommendation that was in the Reid report, and that is: A plan of treatment for the person subject to community treatment order that describes the necessary medical and other supports, including income and housing required for the person to live in the community. I think that is very important because it is not just about having a person involuntarily committed to a clinical program at the Waterford Hospital and having them do their two-week stay and get the drug treatments that they want, but it is also about after they get out and the follow-up that goes with after they get out and the kind of environment they are being placed into.

I know that the bill is recommending as part of the treatment, that there would be a management case officer, I think, and that there would be mental health nurses and other resources available - a certified case management specialist. That there would be a certified case management specialist and there would be mental health nurses available to see patients through that particular process -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair that her time for speaking has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Maybe I could just leave those questions with the minister and then once he responds, I have a couple of more questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: The hon. member by leave.

CHAIR: The hon. member by leave?

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to finish up that question, and there were a couple of others. I know the minister is going to respond to those issues after. So I appreciate the time to be able to lay out my concerns and where I am coming from.

One of the things under the community treatment program was the certified case management specialist and the mental health workers. This particular component of the bill, I see it as a very substantial piece to bridging the gap between the community and the institution. What my concern is, is this, when you get into communities like Little Catalina, which is where Norman Reid lived, will those resources be available? That was my concern. I know it is not going to be a problem in the Eastern Avalon region. I know it is not going to be a problem in Corner Brook, Grand Falls or Gander where we have - in some cases, still have - psychiatrists. Not in all those areas because, as you know, they are difficult to recruit these days. Where you have psychiatrists or where you have mental health nurses or where you have certified case managers for mental health, I could see this concept working and working very effectively.

My concern is, when you get into the more remote areas, like the area where Norman Reid lived in Little Catalina, or in other rural areas around the Province where you do not necessarily have those clinical based expertise anymore: How realistic is it going to be, to be able to manage this particular part of it? I am sure that all of the efforts will be made to try and do so, but I wanted to ask the minister that question because I do not know if it is something that they have given some consideration to within the department or not. I know in a lot of these areas of the Province we do have clinic operations where we have registered nurses who work there, in some cases. These days we are lucky enough to have nurse practitioners working in some of those communities. I do not know if there is a way that these individuals may be able to be given the appropriate training to deal with the responsibility of persons with mental illness who are going to be living in those particular regions or not. It might be one option that could be available to the department in looking at being able to deliver a program like that in those rural areas.

The other concern that I have is with regard to the resources. This is a great piece of legislation. It is a good bill and it will certainly help those people out there in our Province who suffer from mental illness. I will give you an example, because many of you probably remember an individual last year - I know I raised this case in the House of Assembly a couple of times, actually, but it was with regard to a gentleman by the name of Wilfred Benson. I see the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs nodding because he was actually the Minister of Health at the time that I raised the case with regard to Wilfred Benson. This was an individual who had suffered actually from Schizophrenia, or had a history, I should say, of mental illness and depression. He was actually living in a tent outside of Mount Pearl in the woods. It was of grave concern to the Mental Health Society, as well as to his family members who were living in Alberta at the time, in terms of how you could deal with Mr. Benson. He was living in the woods. He was not receiving proper medical care. He was not taking his drug treatments. Therefore, there was a tremendous amount of concern, not only by the Mental Health Society and by his family but by a lot of other individuals as well.

I remember asking the minister this question in the House of Assembly, in terms of why he could not be involuntarily taken into a mental health institution in the Province? At the time the minister had responded to me, saying that Mr. Benson had chosen this lifestyle and, basically, we had to respect that. I found that very difficult to understand at first. I guess it became clearer when you look at the revisions that are in the mental health act today. Because today the minister would have had, with the passing of this bill, the authority to see that Mr. Benson got the kind of medical treatment that he needed. Whereas a year ago he could not have done that because the act did not give him the authority as a minister, or the Department of Health the authority within our jurisdiction to be able to take this individual involuntarily into a medical institution and give him the treatment that he required.

It is an interesting case of events, I would say, because even then one would have expected that this could have been done, but now the way the legislation reads - I do not have it directly in front of me, that particular piece of it, but basically how it reads now is that if it is believed that the individual could do harm to themselves or to someone else, and also if they know, in fact, that the individual has a history of mental illness and if the individual is not taking the drug treatments that they should, then they have the authority to be able to act in a situation like that. As you know, that was not the case under the old legislation and that is why, when the minister was questioned in the House back a year ago, he really did not have the power to be able to act in the situation that one would have expected him to be able to. I think it is important to point that out because this is just one example of how this legislation will bring about some of the changes in the current day events that we have been unable to deal with thus far.

One of the other issues, as I said, is with regard to adequate resources. I know that there have been ten mental health nurses added since 2003 to the various departments across the Province. Actually, I know two of them are in Labrador, that I am familiar with. Mr. Chair, I think it goes without saying that there is still a shortage of mental health nurses in the field in the Province. I will give you one example just from my own district.

There is one mental health nurse in my district who works out of the Labrador Straits region into the Forteau Hospital, and they are supposed to service an area from L'Anse au Clair right up to Charlottetown. While it is not a huge population, probably a population of 5,000 people, it is a huge geography to be able to service, and not all of it connected by road and not all of it with roads that are open on a year-around basis or - I do not want to say safe, but sometimes often difficult to travel over in the winter months, so it makes this individual's job very difficult. In fact, so difficult with the geography and with the number of people, they have so many cases right now that they are dealing with just within that one office, it is almost impossible to take on any new mental health cases.

That is unfortunate, because I think when you have an act like this, which is a really good piece of legislation, you need to have the resources to go with it to implement it appropriately. I think that would have to start with adding more mental health nurses out there in our system in the Province, and it would also have to deal with ensuring that we have psychiatrists in place. Right now, for example, in all of Labrador and all the Northern Peninsula, there are no psychiatry services available at all. We also know that in the Eastern Health region there is a shortage of psychiatrists, and we know that in the Western region there is a shortage of psychiatrists. We are not the only province in Canada that has a problem with psychiatry and recruiting psychiatrists. I think it is probably a national problem, and the minister would certainly be able to speak to that, I am sure, after just coming from a meeting with his provincial counterparts from across the country.

Psychiatry is an area where it has been difficult to be able to fill the complement of positions that are available in Newfoundland and Labrador, especially in the more remote areas, so it is very difficult to provide a service when you do not have the actual resources in terms of the human resources there to often do it.

I know in my district, for instance, there used to be a psychiatrist at St. Anthony hospital who would come in and out of those communities and meet with people, or people who needed the psychiatry services on a regular basis would go to St. Anthony and see a psychiatrist, but that option is not available any more. The closest psychiatry service that they could receive now would be in Corner Brook. Of course, with all of the Northern Peninsula and Southern Labrador being added to the caseload of that individual, it makes it very, very difficult.

Resources, I think, have to be certainly a priority. Whenever you make changes and commitments to a service in a way that this act does, you have to ensure that the resources are there to be able to do the job appropriately.

I realize that there have been some mental health nurses added, I know that there have been some certification management specialists added, but again I think there are still gaps out there that need to be filled.

Of course, the other concern for me is one that has been raised by the Schizophrenia Society and that is with regard to drug therapies. As you can see, I have a pile of notes on my desk right now so I do not have the letter in front of me, so I cannot tell you the exact name of the medication, but basically there is one medication out there for schizophrenia patients that they would like to see added to the formula in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is my understanding that almost every province in Canada now provides that drug and it can be prescribed through a general practitioner in some cases. In a lot of cases, I think it is being prescribed by psychiatrists. Nevertheless, it is one of the medications that they feel needs to be made available in Newfoundland and Labrador for people who are suffering from schizophrenia right now. I think they have made representation to the minister on this, to the Department of Health. I know they have talked to me, and maybe the NDP Party as well, so they feel that this is necessary and needs to be done.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take much longer. I will conclude my comments now. I will listen to the minister's response and I may have some concluding comments at the end.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, and thanks to the minister for agreeing to my going ahead. That way, he can deal with the comments from both my colleague and myself.

Before I speak, I do also, as the minister did, want to welcome the representatives from the Canadian Mental Health Association and from the Schizophrenia Society of Newfoundland and Labrador. Their presence here, I think, is really important because it underlines the process that the minister used in coming up with the legislation that we are discussing today.

I mentioned this during the second reading of the bill but I want to say it again, I think that the ministry did use a very good model of inclusion of the stakeholders right from the very beginning. This is an extremely important piece of legislation, and one that will be around for awhile, I am sure, so it was really important that the stakeholders, two of whom are represented here today, were involved.

I am not going to repeat a lot of the questions of my colleague because I agree with all that she said, and the minister is going to be responding to her points, so I am going to add just a few thoughts to what my colleague has already talked about.

I think I will start with the point I just made with regard to the life of the act. All legislation, as we know, is a living document. We do not pass legislation and say, there, we have done that. The last piece of legislation on mental health was in place for thirty-five years and became quite outdated, outmoded, and not meeting the needs of people in the Province. So, I guess one of the things that I would say to the minister, I will not say it is a concern but it is a point of discussion, that I think it would be really good to build into the plans that the department has with regard to putting this legislation in place an ongoing monitoring of how the act plays out, an evaluation of how major pieces of the act play out, especially the section on community treatment orders since that is such a new piece, and that the process of consultation that was begun with the stakeholders be continued with those stakeholders, and not just the stakeholders on the level of provincial organizations but stakeholders on the level of the communities as well who are really trying hard to put the legislation in place. Again, I am speaking especially to how the community treatment orders play out. I think it will be really important to have an evaluation process that is continuous, that looks at what happens when somebody does go back home into a remote community such as Little Catalina.

Is what is on paper working for them? - not to wait for two years to find out, or until there is a crisis to find out, but have that evaluation built into the process. That notion of continuous evaluation, I think, is really essential, not just for this piece of legislation but for everything that we are involved in, but since we are talking about this piece of legislation it is in this context that I am saying it.

This legislation is dealing with something very important both to the individuals who suffer from a mental disorder as well as their families and the communities they are part of, so the legislation has to be offering as much protection and safety as possible to everybody who is going to be affected. I think being sure that we are monitoring and evaluating is one way to make sure that happens. I think that is what we owe the communities, that is what we owe the individuals, that is what we owe the families.

I do not see anything necessarily in the legislation that speaks to that, but I think it is something that can be put in place by ministry without its being in the legislation. It is probably not normally something that is included in legislation but, as I said, because of the seriousness of this legislation, because of the fact that we literally are dealing with life and death - we know that, from our experience in the Province - it is life and death issues we are talking about, therefore, being very attentive to looking at how the legislation is playing out is important.

Another piece that I would like to speak to was alluded to by my colleague from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, but I would like to go a little bit further, and that has to do with the training aspect. Whether it is the training aspect of the police, whether it is the training of the medical professional people or the people who are, for example, social workers in the social safety network, I think it is not enough to say that there is training, but I think the department also has to come up with guidelines for the training, and guidelines that spell out what the minimum requirements are. You could get a group, for example, who might say: Well, we can take on our own training; we know how to train our personnel.

I do not think that is adequate. I think the organization or the group would have to be able to prove to the ministry that they really do have the skills and the expertise to do that. I think the way to show that is to show how they can meet requirements that are put in place by the ministry, minimum requirements for training. I do not mean a bottom line here, like the least possible, but what is essential, probably the essential requirements for training. If the organization goes beyond that, that is great, but what are the essentials?

If a group, no matter which group it is, whether it is the Association of Social Workers or the police or whatever, they say: Oh, we know how to do the training - well, they have to show to government that they know how to do that training. Then I think we can have some sense of assurance that the training that is going on is going to be reliable.

Again, this stuff is life and death that we are talking about, so having requirements for training, I think, would be very good. It is no different than having basic requirements for being a teacher. You do have requirements in order for somebody to go into our classrooms and deal with our children. Then I think it would be the same way with the training here. Again, if the minister is already thinking about that, and the ministry is looking at it, then he can talk to us about that when he responds to those of us who have spoken or will speak.

I have a couple of more points, Mr. Chair. I am not going to go on long today. The issues around services, obviously, I am quite pleased with the fact that once again the Minister of Health listened to the concerns that I had, and the concerns that my colleague, the critic for the Opposition had, and entered into a discussion so that an amendment is being brought forward. I am going to be very pleased when the time comes to bring that amendment forward and to, once again, as we did with the bill on the Human Research Ethics Authority, come up with wording that met our needs. I feel confident that, besides my colleague and myself being pleased with this wording, I think the stakeholders will be pleased with the wording as well.

Once again, I think that the minister has given leadership in his ministry in how to work together to come up with legislation, not just that it is legislation that is satisfactory to us but it is legislation that is good for the community and for the people in this Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to the minister's comments.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Again, I thank our guests, the stakeholders who are in the gallery. I know we have had a very long afternoon for them. Hopefully, we will see this put through now in the next few moments.

I will answer the questions that were raised. I did make some notes, and I will answer the questions that were raised by both the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

Mr. Chairman, there has been some training already done for police officers. There was money put aside in the budget for additional training, and we will continue with additional training. On a go-forward basis the committee will be reconvening the layout and implementation plan, Mr. Chairman, of which training will be a priority.

We have already become more cognizant - all of us, Mr. Chairman, especially front line professionals - for a better understanding and an increased sensitivity for individuals with mental illness in Newfoundland and Labrador. This is important for everybody, Mr. Chairman, especially front line professionals, but even more importantly the individuals who are suffering from mental disorders.

Mr. Chairman, we support Changing Minds in the Province. The department, over the last three years, has put some funding into the Changing Minds project, and that project is for the development and implementation of the program. This program attempts to educate front line workers in the Province, including staff and police officers, about all aspects of mental illness, and both police forces have been involved with the stakeholder committee.

We will be having a look at what resources are required in order to sustain this particular piece of legislation on a go-forward basis in the upcoming budget. I will give a commitment, especially to the stakeholders, that will be part of the process.

An issue was raised about medical care required. Part of the community treatment orders for some individuals, in part, and especially as highlighted by the Luther inquiry, was part of the reason we brought about the community treatment orders, and the medical care requirements will be addressed as part of the community treatment orders. Part of the amendment that is going to come forward as part of section 42 of the act will also outline some of that. The community treatment orders resources will be looked at for individuals to ensure that they have the necessary supports in place.

Mr. Chairman, another issue that was raised - I think the only other issue that was raised, unless I am mistaken - was the certified case management specialists for mental health workers, and whether or not resources will be available in smaller communities.

We will certainly make every endeavour to ensure that is the case. Again, in the upcoming budget we will be looking at what resources will be required to allow this bill to be effective, to allow the legislation to be effective, and to most appropriately help individuals with mental illness and mental disorders to become full and participating members of society.

I think that answers most of the questions. If there are other questions, I say to both the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that I would be most happy to sit down with them and stakeholders, if necessary, to look at other clauses and other pieces of the legislation that need to be addressed.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CLERK: Clause 42.

CHAIR We have not passed clauses 1 to 41.

CLERK: Oh, sorry.

CHAIR: Clauses 1 to 41 inclusive.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just like to respond to the minister and say I do not expect us to get into a dialogue here on the floor, but I would like to have further conversation with regard to the continuous evaluation. I do not think you spoke necessarily to that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, Mr. Chair, I would certainly be happy to enter into some discussions with the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi.

I will say that the committee is an ongoing process and the committee will continue to look at the delivery of services. In addition, included in this bill, at any time between now and the five-year anniversary of this piece of legislation, we can make changes to the legislation, we can make improvements to the legislation, but required by law now, as part of this legislation, every five years this legislation will come under review to ensure that we do not go another thirty-five years without improvements to the legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 41 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 41 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 41 carried.

CLERK: Clause 42.

CHAIR: Clause 42.

Shall clause 42 carry?

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes, I have an amendment to make to clause 42, section (a). If you want, I will read that into the record. Clause 42, section (a) amended to read: a plan of treatment for the person subject to the community treatment order that describes the necessary medical and other supports including income and housing required for the person to live in the community.

I think this amendment speaks to concerns that we raised both in second reading and, as well, here today in Committee of the Whole.

CHAIR: Before the Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services, the amendment has been put forward by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. The Table has had an opportunity to review the amendment and the Chairperson rules that the amendment is in order.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Just a quick note on the amendment, and I thank the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi for raising the issue with me. The member did raise an issue with me, and I did endeavour to have staff in my department provide wording that would address her concerns. We are certainly pleased on this side of the House to have provided that wording and we are certainly in favour of the amendment.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment to clause 42 of Bill 61?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The amendment is carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt clause 42 as amended?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 42, as amended, carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 42, as amended, is carried

On motion, clause 42, as amended, carried

CLERK: Clauses 43 to 85.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 43 to 85 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 42 through 85 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act Respecting Mental Health Care And Treatment.

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 61, An Act Respecting Mental Health Care And Treatment, carried with amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 61, with amendment, is carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Having such progress with unanimous agreement on that bill, which is good. A good piece of legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I now call Bill 69, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

CHAIR: The Committee is ready to hear debate on Bill 69, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act." (Bill 69)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 7.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 7 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 7 inclusive are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 7 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining 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 69, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 69 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I now call Bill 66, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 And The Human Rights Code.

CHAIR: The Committee is ready to hear debate on Bill 66, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 And The Human Rights Code.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 And The Human Rights Code." (Bill 66)

CLERK: Clauses 1 and 2.

CHAIR: Clauses 1 and 2.

Shall clauses 1 and 2 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I could not figure out earlier why my colleague, the Member for Bay of Islands, used to call this the Monaghan bill. We figured it out this afternoon after we had a closer look at it. We are talking about the recent addition to the bench by Mr. Monaghan, the lawyer, who was partner with the Minister of Justice in Corner Brook. The reason we are calling it the Monaghan bill is because prior to this bill being passed it says right here now that every judge shall retire upon attaining the age of seventy years. Before that it used to be sixty-five. In fact, all throughout the public service the age of retirement in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador had to be sixty-five. Once you attained that age you were told to go home out of it. Your services were no longer required.

The reason I think the minister increased that to be seventy years instead of sixty-five is that according to the Minister of Finance this afternoon, in order to receive a pension from the bench as a judge in this Province you had to have at least five years of service or you did not qualify for anything. You did not qualify for any pension. It is my understanding that Mr. Monaghan was sixty-two years of age when he was appointed to the bench. So if he was forced to retire at sixty-five he would have three years as a judge and, as a result, he would not be able to collect a pension. Under this act now they have raised it to seventy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Well, it is either this one or another one. You changed the age of mandatory retirement, I say to those opposite, from sixty-five onward. The minister himself, this afternoon, said it is not gone if we are putting in a bill right here that you have to retire at seventy. You are still discriminating according to age at seventy the same as you were discriminating at sixty-five. What you are doing, basically, is giving Mr. Monaghan the right to stick around long enough to get a pension. I think that is the only reason that was put in place.

According to the calculations that the Minister of Finance told me today, you get 3.3 per cent a year for every year you are a judge towards your pension. So, Mr. Monaghan's pension, based on seventy years of age, should come out to be somewhere around - after seven years on the bench he should get somewhere between $40,000 and $50,000 when he retires. Not bad, I say to those opposite, for seven years on the bench.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: The Minister of Finance is over there saying it is on par with what we are getting, but that, Mr. Chairman, I say refers to Cabinet ministers and not the MHAs who are sitting in the backbench who have not had an opportunity to sit in Cabinet yet; because, after seven years as an MHA, if you could retire, you would make about - a backbench MHA - maybe $30,000, if you were old enough to retire after seven years.

Anyway, we finally found out why my colleague, the Member for Bay of Islands, called it the Monaghan bill. Listening to the Minister of Justice explain it this afternoon, and that followed up by the Minister of Finance helping us calculate his pension, we can see now why this indeed is called the Monaghan bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will just make a couple of brief comments to the minister. We are in Committee stage here, where we have to deal with the exact provisions of the bill by clause.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: You do not have much leeway in terms of what you discuss.

My comment again, and I reiterate to the minister, and I appreciate his comments that he made in response when he closed debate in second reading - I appreciate his response, actually - but I still think we have missed the boat on this one.

Personally, I will be voting against the bill, but it will be on principle. The principle is - and, again, I will restate it to the minister - the principle is that we are, as a government, doing something here without having the tribunal look at it, and that is my only concern. In fact, I agree with the fact that the retirement age, if you want to increase it beyond sixty-five, absolutely. I do not have a problem with extending the retirement age beyond sixty-five. That is my personal opinion.

Whether you want to call it the Monaghan act or anything else, I do not care what the Leader of the Opposition calls it. I have no problem with the extension of act limit from sixty-five to seventy. In fact, I would have no problem if you wanted it, say, seventy-five, the same as you do under the federal appointments of section 96 judges. That is not the point.

The point I am trying to make is that we have, in this Province, for fifteen years we were at a situation where we could not get an agreement with judges and government over issues of benefits, wages and so on. We had this issue of independence of the judiciary. We cannot have the minister standing up here today saying we are going to change this law from sixty-five to seventy and not have consultation done through the tribunal. It does not make sense. You cannot on the one hand be preaching independence of the judiciary and on the other hand you take it upon yourselves to change that most important part of it, how long a judge can work. That is the principle I disagree with.

I do not care what the minister says about, oh, I am sure there is no Provincial Court judge who would disagree with extending it. Maybe that is true. Maybe there is no Provincial Court judge who cares if the age is from sixty-five to seventy. Why would they? It is not taking anything away from anyone down there.

The point is, we are now having government do it and I think you have broken your own comments and commentary about the independence of the judiciary. You cannot be here touting everything about independence of the judiciary and take it upon yourselves as one party to change this most important piece. That is why I am going to vote against it, on the principle. You might as well throw the tribunal out the window if, whenever you feel you want to, as a government, you are going to come in and tamper with something. Maybe there are none of the judges down there now who have any problem with extending this retirement age. I doubt if there would be, but that does not take away from the fact that you have arbitrarily, unilaterally, decided to change the age, as a government, without going through the tribunal. We are on record, this government, the previous government, we are on record as saying we will live by the recommendations of the tribunal when it comes to Provincial Court judges. That is not what you are doing here. That is why I am going to be voting against it, because you are breaching your own principles and your own laws in doing that. It is irrelevant that the Chief Provincial Court Judge asked you. He is not the tribunal, with all due respect. The Chief Justice Reid is not the tribunal. and he does not speak for the tribunal.

The other piece I had a problem with is the minister's logic. He says, I raised the issue and said, okay, we passed a law in the spring getting rid of the discriminatory age requirement that you have to retire at sixty-five. Okay, I do believe most people over here voted in favour of that. So, the minister says all we are doing now is, we are passing a law which is in conformity with the spirit of what we did back then. We took out the age of sixty-five. Well, if that is the case, why are we putting back in an age?

I have a problem with that logic. The minister says, no, no, no we are just doing here something to comply with the law that we passed in the spring. In the spring we took the sixty-five age out. We made our laws of employment non-discriminatory by taking out sixty-five, but then we turn around here in clause 1 and we plug in seventy.

Now, if having sixty-five in there previously was considered to be discriminatory, how can you ever say it is not discriminatory now by having every law in the Province no age limit but you are going to take a certain class of people, a Provincial Court judge, and you are going to say here - and, by the way, it is not discretionary - every judge shall retire upon attaining the age of seventy years. I think that is pretty mandatory. So, you are saying, wipe out the age for everybody else in the Province, plug in an age of seventy for Provincial Court judges, but that is non-discriminatory.

Minister, will all due respect, I cannot follow your logic there, and I do not think Joe and Martha follow that logic either, because that is pretty simple. Joe and Martha do not understand that either, and that is the other reason that I am going to vote against it. It is just as equally important as the first reason. You have tampered until the rights of the tribunal, number one; and, number two, you are taking a group of people, a class of people, back to that discriminatory phase under the human rights by saying the age of seventy.

You do not have to say seventy; why don't you just leave them out? I assume the law in this Province is going to be, after May, that there is no age?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: So, if we are not going to have any age, that you must go home at sixty-five any more, why are we putting in an age for a certain group of people?

All I am saying is, treat them fair and square. That is why I do not have a problem with whether it is seventy or seventy-five or whatever. All I am saying is, if you are going to tamper with it, which I do not think you should because it is a tribunal thing to start with, but if you are going to tamper with it, you should not single them out and treat them any differently than anybody else.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to speak on this bill for a few minutes.

Oh, it is the Monaghan bill; there is no doubt out around Corner Brook that is what it is named. I think the Minister of Justice is well aware of the rumour around Corner Brook anyway that this is just the Monaghan bill, appointing a judge which I am sure, if the minister would ever release it, was not even highly recommended, wasn't one of the highly recommended people.

MS FOOTE: What?

MR. JOYCE: Oh, no, he definitely was not one of the highly recommended people. The highly recommended ones, who usually go on the Committee - definitely wasn't Mike Monaghan.

Mr. Chairman, as the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile mentioned, there was a tribunal set up who were supposed to oversee any recommendations to the department, and obviously this is just a sidestep -

MS FOOTE: Respecting judges.

MR. JOYCE: Respecting judges - to fulfill a commitment to Mr. Monaghan, and that is common knowledge out around the Corner Brook area, that hopefully he would get a pension.

Mr. Chairman, I have to take a bit of exception to it because I guess most people know the history of myself and Mr. Monaghan going back in the Bay of Islands.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: No, he is buddies with my friends, and so was the Minister of Justice for a while until he would not return his phone calls anymore, but that is fine.

I take a bit of exception to it also. It is a bit of an exception to this here, because here we are now bringing in a bill for a judge, Judge Monaghan, so that he can get his pension. I just happen to have some of the affidavits that were put in the court when the election was appealed back in 2003. He ran against me in 2003 -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Bay of Islands that we are debating section 1 and section 2 which pertains to the Provincial Court Act and the Human Rights Code, and I ask if the hon. member would confine his comments to the particular bill and not an election.

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Chairman, I am talking about the judge and the human rights part of it because I have to explain why I feel that this bill - and why I would be voting against it. During the election at the time - here we are now bringing a bill in for one specific person, so that he can get his pension and he is a judge now.

One of the affidavits - I will just give you an example, if you will hear me out about the example. Here is a judge now who took an affidavit, put it in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, signed his name to it and one of the affidavits was written by a guy in Curling. The affidavit said that he worked as a scrutineer for the PC Party during the election. During the election itself when he was sitting down there were fifty-two people -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I will remind the hon. member once more and ask him if he would confine his thoughts to section 1 and section 2 of the bill. One section of the bill contains a judge retiring at age seventy and the other section of the bill is talking about the employment of a judge.

I ask the member if he would be kind enough to contain his statements to those particular sections of the bill.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Chairman, I am discussing the employment of a judge, how the person got put there in the first place, why he should be there or not be there, his pension after he turned sixty-three, when he was appointed when he was sixty-three. This is all part of the whole process. If you are going to go through the tribunal to have someone appointed a judge - which in this case this person was not even one of the highly recommended ones, and the minister still will not release that. He was not even one of the highly recommended ones. Then if you turn around and if you are talking about the pension of a judge and the reason why it was put in place, it is very relevant. It is extremely relevant.

Now, you can make whatever ruling you like, Mr. Chair, that is your right, but this is relevant. This is very relevant on this pension bill for this individual; very relevant. You can make whatever ruling you like, Mr. Chair, but I feel it is within my right to speak on this bill, for someone who is going to collect a $40,000 a year pension, that when he was going through the tribunal and when he was recommended - not highly recommended. He was not one of the highly recommended, and I challenge the minister to release that. I think it is my right and my duty to speak about it. I will speak about it. It is your ruling, but I will speak about it. Because if we have a tribunal set up in this Province for Provincial Court judges, if we have a tribunal, I think we should follow the tribunal. I feel personally that we should follow the tribunal.

It was the Department of Justice that actually set up the tribunal that would make the recommendations to the Department of Justice and to the government. So, why don't we follow it? What reason are we changing the procedure to have the tribunal not make the recommendations to the government? We have to find out why. I know it is common knowledge, and the Minister of Justice knows it is common knowledge out in Corner Brook, that this bill was brought in for Mr. Monaghan. He is well aware of it. He hears that.

MS FOOTE: And why the age of seventy?

MR. JOYCE: Why the age of seventy? Well, that is something that we have not found out about yet. There is no one here who can explain why seventy? Why was it picked out, seventy? It needs to get to seventy. That is common knowledge in Corner Brook. Who knows? He may take over one of the Provincial Court judges' positions, Chief Judge Luther had before when it is moved back in Corner Brook. He may take that over. He is the Chief Judge, Provincial Court. That is the rumour in Corner Brook, that in year to a year-and-a-half Mr. Monaghan will move from Stephenville back to Corner Brook all of a sudden, to give him four or five years to top up his pension. This is why it is being done. There is absolutely no doubt. Absolutely no doubt!

Mr. Chair, you always find -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: When you speak the truth, you always find that members opposite get kind of rowdy because they do not want to hear the truth. They do not want to hear the truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Well, I can tell you one truth, I say to the member, that when Mike Monaghan challenged the last court it cost $19,984.56 for Mr. Hutchings to represent him. That is no rumour. That is a fact.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Now, he is being rewarded.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I say to the hon. member for the final time, I ask him to keep his remarks to the spirit of the two sections of the act. If not, I am going to have to ask the hon. member to take his seat.

The Chair recognizes the Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Chairman, if we get back to the tribunal again, and the minister still has not answered this: Why didn't the department ask the tribunal to look at this? He still has not answered it. He could not answer that question. This may not have been recommended. The member knows, the minister knows himself, that if you go through the tribunal who is supposed to make the recommendations back to the Department of Justice that there is a possibility that this would not be recommended.

I say to the Minister of Justice, you cannot just take it arbitrarily, take it and pick it one day and say: Okay, we are going to use this part of the tribunal for recommendations. Turn around the next day and say: Oh no, because it is one of our friends, because it is another one of our feed trough that we want to reward one of our friends, that we are going to go ahead arbitrarily and make a decision.

Mr. Chairman, I will be voting against this bill because of the procedure. If you are going to follow procedure, you have to follow procedure. We saw what happened when you are at the feed trough with the Bull Arm Site procedure. I say to the Minister of Justice, if you are going to set out procedure -

MR. HICKEY: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: I say to the Minister of Transportation and Works, you cannot tell me to shut up. I am in no meeting where you can tell me to shut up. You cannot do it. I am in this House of Assembly. I am going to speak in this House of Assembly and you cannot tell me to shut up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I am not the Member for Humber Valley. You will not tell me to shut up. You absolutely will not tell me to shut up, and I will not shut up. I will not shut up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Bay of Islands. I ask members for their co-operation.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, the Minister of Transportation and Works thinks I am somebody he can tell to shut up. You are talking to the wrong person, I can assure you. As long as I am elected in the Bay of Islands I will stay and speak what I want to speak. I can assure you of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: I can assure that minister that. I can assure you that.

I will say to you, Mr. Chairman, I will not be down like the Member for L'Anse au Clair and he was out there saying: Oh, you will not invite her to the meeting. When she was coming he walked out. I would be man enough to stay there and face the member. Do you know why he would not stay there?

MR. CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time for speaking has lapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Shall clauses 1 and 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 and 2 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 and 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 And The Human Rights Code. (Bill 66)

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 66, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 And The Human Rights Code, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 66 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: I move the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 61 carried with amendment and Bills 66 and 69 carried without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will deal with Bills 66 and 69 first, and then deal with Bill 61 after.

The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 66 and Bill 69 passed without amendment.

When shall this report be received.

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

When shall Bills 66 and 69 be read a third time?

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bills 66 and 69 ordered read a third time presently, by leave.

The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 61 passed with an amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: First reading of the amendment.

CHAIR: It is moved and seconded that the said amendment be now read a second time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that the amendment be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: Second reading of the amendment.

On motion, amendment read a first and second time.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the Bill 61, An Act Respecting Medical Health Care And Treatment, be read a third time?

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, report received and adopted, Bill 61 ordered read a third time presently, by leave.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move third reading of Bill 69, with leave, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair understands that leave has been granted.

It is moved and seconded that Bill 69, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, be now read a third time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill 69 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 69)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 69 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the Bill be pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 69)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now move, with leave, Bill 66, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court, 1991 And The Human Rights Code.

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

It is moved and seconded that Bill 66 be now read a third time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 66, An Act To Amend The provincial Court Act, 1991And The Human Rights Code, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 And The Human Rights Code. (Bill 66)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 66, An Act to Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 And The Human Rights Code, has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 And The Human Rights Code, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 66)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I now move third reading of Bill 61, An Act Respecting The Mental Health Care And Treatment.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 61, An Act Respecting Mental Health Care And Treatment, be now read a third time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 61 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Mental Health Care And Treatment. (Bill 61)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 61, An Act Respecting Mental Health Care And Treatment, has now been read a third time and is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Mental Health Care And Treatment," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 61)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the House do adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do now adjourn until tomorrow, Tuesday, December 12, at 1:30 p.m. 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 tomorrow Tuesday at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

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