MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we are pleased to welcome thirty Grade 8 students from Our Lady of Mercy School in St. George's, in the District of St. George's-Stephenville East. These students are accompanied by their teachers, Ms Darlene Sexton, Ms Roxanne Garnier, Mr. Ivan MacDonald, as well as their chaperones, Arlene Blanchard-White, Eli White, Sylvia White, and their bus driver, Mr. Paul Johnson.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We would also wish to welcome twenty-two Grade 6 students from Newton Elementary school in the District of Mount Pearl. They are accompanied by their teacher, Ms Allison Pincent, and their chaperones, Ms Denise Coombs, Ms Bernice Sullivan, and Mr. Carl Burt. A very special welcome to one young student, Nicholas Taylor, who I understand is spending part of his day at his father's workplace in the House of Assembly.

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 the District of Bonavista South; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for the District of Labrador West; the hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile; the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits; and, the hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

The Chair recognizes the Member for the District of Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada announced the awarding of fifteen Decorations for Bravery.

The Decorations for Bravery, Mr. Speaker, were established in 1972 as part of the Canadian honours system, and the medal is awarded for acts of bravery in hazardous circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, Gerald Alfred Strickland, a resident of Newman's Cove, Bonavista Bay, will receive one of these Medals of Bravery.

Mr. Speaker, on January 23, 2006, Gerald Strickland saved an elderly couple from their burning house in Newman's Cove, Bonavista Bay. After entering the flaming house, Mr. Strickland called out to the occupants and heard a muffled reply from a man. Through the blinding smoke, Mr. Strickland made his way towards the kitchen where he bumped into the man's wheelchair, stuck in the doorway.

Mr. Speaker, although gasping for air, Mr. Strickland was able to free the wheelchair and bring the man outside. Only after they were outside did he notice that the victim's wife had been holding onto the wheelchair as it was pulled to safety, seconds before the house was completely engulfed in flames.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members of the House of Assembly join with me in saying a sincere thank you to Mr. Strickland, and offer our congratulations in receiving this recognition for saving the lives of this elderly couple.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to Tom Tarrant on his induction into the Sport Newfoundland & Labrador Hall of Fame for his achievements in soccer. Mr. Tarrant entered the Hall of Fame in the Athlete category.

Tom Tarrant, whose hometown of St. Lawrence was once referred to as the ‘hot bed' of soccer in the Province, was considered one of the best soccer players ever. His team, the St. Lawrence Laurentians, which captured five straight provincial senior soccer championships, was voted team of the decade in the 1970s.

Mr. Tarrant played with the Memorial University Beothucks Soccer Team, the Newfoundland & Labrador Summer Games Soccer Team and the Newfoundland & Labrador Soccer Team. He was selected to the Canadian Pan Am Soccer Team in 1975, only the second Newfoundlander to earn a spot on the team. Over the course of his soccer career, he achieved numerous awards for his accomplishments, including co-winner of the Newfoundland & Labrador Senior Male Athlete of the Year Award in 1975.

Others inducted were William Breen of St. John's, Mike Kelly of Bell Island, Matthew Foster, originally of Ireland now living in St. Johns, Robert Hillier of Mount Pearl, and Gordon Follett of St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Mr. Tarrant and other inductees on this honour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize an outstanding young athlete from this Province, Mr. Joey Russell. Mr. Russell, a native of Labrador City, is an eighteen year-old figure skater who now trains in Barrie, Ontario. On May 21, just a few days ago, he was named to the 2007-2008 Skate Canada Senior National Team. This, in itself, is quite an accomplishment, Mr. Speaker, but this is also the first time that a skater from this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has made it on the Senior National Team's roster.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Joey Russell began skating at the young age of seven and over the years he has won numerous awards. In 2004, he was the runner-up for the national novice men's crown; and in 2006, he captured the Canadian Junior title. As well, Mr. Speaker, Joey Russell was named Newfoundland and Labrador's Junior Male Athlete of the Year for 2006.

This remarkable young athlete will share the ice with some of the top international stars this year. I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating and recognizing figure skater, Joey Russell, on making the national senior team.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in this House to acknowledge and congratulate the Cape Ray Come Home Year Committee. This group, with over twenty members, has been busy for more than a year planning and fundraising for the community's first-ever Come Home Year celebrations this summer, from July 20 to 28.

Fundraising for the celebrations included a kitchen party, which took place on April 7, a community supper on April 22, and a float-a-note race on May 20. On March 11, my wife and I and some friends had the pleasure of attending their community brunch at Cape Ray, where the community came out in droves to enjoy a hearty meal with their family and friends to support the fundraising efforts.

Mr. Speaker, the committee has hired a number of workers who are building benches and tables for use during the events and will be constructing a stage and dance floor. There will also be upgrades to the community ballfield, which will be the location of the first ball tournament in the community since the mid-1980s.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in acknowledging and congratulating the Cape Ray Come Home Year Committee on their first-ever Come Home Year celebrations, this July 20 to 28. We wish them all the best.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the members of the 166^th Newfoundland Field Regiment Royal Artillery of World War II.

In 1940, the 57^th Regiment Royal Artillery was formed and in 1941 the 57^th became the 166^th Newfoundland Field Regiment.

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I had the privilege to take part in a ceremony celebrating the dedication of an original cannon used by the 166^th Gunners called a 25 Pounder. The gun had an effective range of up to seven miles and a good six man crew could get it in action in one minute.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago the 166^th Association under the President of Bob Rideout located one of these rare guns in Ontario and managed to search out the funds necessary to purchase it.

During the dedication there was a roll call of gunners of the Exploits Region who died during service in World War II, followed by a silent act of remembrance.

Mr. Speaker, the gun will be displayed prominently on the War Memorial Grounds in Grand Falls-Windsor.

I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the Veterans of the 166^th Field Regiment on procuring and displaying this memorable piece of our Province's war history.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on May 11 I had the privilege of attending the Level III graduation at King Academy in Harbour Breton. The graduation ceremony began with a thanksgiving service at St. Joseph's Church officiated by Father Edward Brophy, Reverend Neil Buffett and Pastor Allison McGregor, followed by a formal dinner and graduation march at the high school.

The class of 2007 included thirty-seven very proud graduates. In a community that continues to struggle due to an unfortunate economic crisis, it was indeed a pleasure to see potential community leaders put their challenges behind them and focus on future opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to join with their principal, Mr. Terry Baker, their homeroom teachers, Bill Snook and John Herritt, and congratulate the Level III students on their accomplishments.

During the evening, Ms Georgina Ollerhead posed a toast to the graduates while graduate Natasha Pittman responded. In addition, graduate Kayla Stewart provided a toast to teachers while their teacher, Mr. Bill Snook, responded. A toast to the parents was provided by graduate Sarah Hickey and Mr. Junior Lambert responded. The evening concluded with a cap and gown ceremony and grand march at the school.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating the 2007 graduating class of King Academy and wish them best wishes for all their future endeavours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my colleagues that an awareness campaign, aimed at reducing youth violence in Newfoundland and Labrador, was launched in Stephenville last week.

It includes television advertisements, posters and a Web site - outragenl.ca. All materials were very well received by the 400 high school students and the members of forty community organizations who attended the launch.

Every day, Mr. Speaker, young people are experiencing physical, emotional, sexual and cyber violence. However, research tells us that an act of violence can be stopped in ten seconds when a bystander steps in to support the victim.

The slogan for the awareness campaign is Stand Up, Reach Out, Take Action against Violence. It was created with the help of youth from across Newfoundland and Labrador. We hope to impress upon our young people that their actions can help reduce, or even eliminate, many acts of violence.

The provincial government has been working hard to ensure that we support communities in their violence prevention efforts. Funding for the renewed Violence Prevention Initiative - Taking Action Against Violence has been increased substantially, with a total investment of $7.5 million over six years.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, in 2006, we introduced the Safe and Caring School Policy. Since that time, schools throughout Newfoundland and Labrador have embraced these policies and adapted them to suit their unique school environments.

Our Lady of Mercy Elementary School in St. George's is an example of how schools are taking a leadership role in combating violence. Staff and students have created a school violence prevention program. It gives youth the ability to solve problems and take steps themselves to reduce violence. They work with each other to make sure their school is safe and that everyone is treated with respect.

Mr. Speaker, the Grade 8 history class from Our Lady of Mercy Elementary is in the gallery today. They are in St. John's to visit The Rooms, Signal Hill, and other historic sites in the region. Many of these students are monitors in the school violence prevention program.

It is encouraging to see schools implement creative programs to combat violence - programs that help our young people understand and spread the message that violence is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial government is committed to providing continued support to schools and to communities at large to prevent all forms of violence. I encourage my hon. colleagues to visit the Web site, outragenl.ca, review the material that is provided for the youth of our Province, and speak to this issue at every possible opportunity.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement, and to say that we go along with this wonderful initiative to help reduce youth violence in our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I say, Mr. Speaker, it is good to see so many students and all the community organizations mentioned in her statement coming together, because I believe that is what has to be done; we have to work together as a total community to bring this to a head.

The minister made a comment in her statement that it only takes ten seconds for a bystander to stop violence. How true that is, Mr. Speaker, because I remember, during our Estimates meetings, I mentioned to the minister about bullying in the schools and she confirmed that she also spoke with teachers who made the comment that they are always the last person to see what happens. So, we have to put other initiatives in place like, for instance, the school that is here today, Our Lady of Mercy Elementary, and to know that they have taken initiatives to help in their community and in their school.

I want to commend them on that, and to say I hope they have a wonderful trip to St. John's, and when they go back that the plans they have put in place can be delivered to each and every school in our Province so that this issue will not become a major problem like we see in other parts of our country and throughout the United States.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for her advance copy.

I, too, am quite pleased to see the initiative that has been put in place and moving into its next stages and next steps. I welcome the students from Our Lady of Mercy Elementary and I, too, congratulate them on the initiative that they are getting into. They are providing a tremendous service in their school, because one of the experiences of students who are bullied, which is one of the expressions of the violence, is that they feel absolutely alone and they feel scared and they feel nobody is listening to them. So, if the students in Our Lady of Mercy can find a way to help identify children who are being bullied, their classmates, and can bring that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS MICHAEL: By leave, please, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The member has asked for leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

If they can find a way to be there for their classmate or classmates, if they can find a way to make sure that this is brought to the teachers and to those in administration so that these children do not feel alone in what they are experiencing, they will be providing a tremendous service.

I congratulate them on their efforts, and I hope that what they do in their school can be learned in other schools.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform my colleagues about an investment the provincial government is making in a company on the Northern Peninsula.

Recently, the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development approved a $200,000 loan from its Small and Medium-sized Enterprise Fund for Canada Ice Enterprises in St. Anthony. The company will use this funding, as well as investments from other sources, to implement its marketing plan and for working capital. Mr. Speaker, the company is expected to create fourteen jobs this year.

Canada Ice produces bottled water from icebergs. Its product is called 80 Degrees North Iceberg Water and is marketed as the "purest water on the planet". On a parts per billion basis, PCBs and other pollutants are not detectable because the ice used by Canada Ice comes from icebergs formed thousands of years ago, long before the age of industrialization and pollution.

The bottled water market is valued between $150 million and $200 million a year in Canada, and $7 billion in the United States. The market is segmented in three tiers. There is store-brand water, branded water, and premium water. Canada Ice's water is premium water. It competes with the very best and highest priced waters available to consumers in the world.

Canada Ice is targeting markets in Canada and the United States, in particular Texas. This year it will launch its product in Austin, Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio. One Texas chain alone will be putting the product into almost 600 of its stores. Canada Ice is available presently in Pioneer Petroleum, Sunoco Stations and 7-11 stores in Ontario, as well as Irving stations throughout Atlantic Canada. It is found in Sobeys stores in Newfoundland and Labrador, and will soon be available in Sobeys locations throughout the Maritimes. 80 Degrees North is also found in many retail outlets throughout Atlantic Canada and is served on all Provincial Airlines flights.

Canada Ice has taken a commodity that we have in relative abundance - most years, anyway - icebergs, this year in particular, and turned it into an economic opportunity to position itself in the premium segment of a growing industry. Our government is pleased to support this innovative company and many other companies throughout the Province, particularly in rural areas.

To demonstrate our commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, the provincial government allocated more than $70 million in Budget 2007 to stimulate business growth, to create jobs and to strengthen the economies of rural areas.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Canada Ice on its energy and enterprise, and I wish them every success in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

This is, indeed, a company that should be supported, and it is a type of company that we like to see, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I commend Mr. Marshall Dean, the owner of the company, for hanging in there and doing what he can to try and stem the serious out-migration that we are seeing from rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is a company that, when you look at it and look at how they have done everything they can to ensure that they continue to exist in a Province and market their product throughout the world - it is giving us a great reputation as well - that you have to be proud of.

There are a lot of other companies in this Province who really need the support of the government, and I am hoping that the $70 million that the minister references as being budgeted for in 2007 will indeed get spent, and not be carried over into next year, as we know has happened in the past, when companies have not taken advantage of the money for whatever reason.

So, I would encourage the government to do its part to get out there and make companies aware of this revenue that is available to them, and make sure that they take advantage of it so that we see more of this in rural Newfoundland and Labrador in particular.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy.

I am very pleased to see this loan being given to the company on the Northern Peninsula. What encourages me is that, with regard to the water that they are bottling, it is water from icebergs. I would hope that this is the kind of environmentally-friendly business that the government would continue to support.

I would urge us to be careful, though, if ever we see more movement towards the bottling of water from water on land, underground water, that we give second thoughts to it, or to bulk water, both of which have environmental concerns. However, this creative use of icebergs is a really good way to go, and I compliment the government on supporting this business.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our provincial historic sites create enlightening, compelling and evocative visitor experiences in which stories are told that relate to the history of each site, and on to the broader history of the community, the region, as well as the Province.

During the 2006 season, some 68,000 people visited our historic sites, walking where the Beothuk once walked, experiencing nineteenth-century living in several historic houses and military structures, and visiting the site of our first Trans-Atlantic telegraph communications system. On Saturday, May 19, our provincial historic sites opened for the summer season, providing visitors an opportunity to actively learn and celebrate the culture of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I rise in this House today, Mr. Speaker, to inform the House of how the provincial government, in partnership with stakeholders and the community at large, is seeking innovative interpretive options for our provincial historic sites that will fully engage visitors and communities in which they are located.

Budget 2007 continues government's three-year investment of $17.6 million to implement the Province's first cultural plan. Entitled, Creative Newfoundland and Labrador: The Blueprint for Development and Investment in Culture, the plan outlines major policies and directions to preserve, support and develop our Province's rich cultural resources.

This year's investment includes $675,000 for the continued revitalization of provincial historic sites. We are also very pleased, in Budget 2007, to provide additional funding that will allow free admission on Sundays to our provincial historic sites. We hope that this will encourage everyone to seek out and visit these sites across Newfoundland and Labrador that are so richly steeped in culture and in heritage.

Mr. Speaker, over the last three months officials in my department have been working with consultants to develop innovative and engaging plans for the re-interpretation of Quidi Vidi Battery, Commissariat House and Cape Bonavista Lighthouse. We are currently in the process of consulting with several stakeholder groups on our plans for these sites. We hope to begin the implementation of these plans during this current season.

Mr. Speaker, interpretation plans for all provincial historic sites assist in making our history come alive, both for the communities involved and the people who visit and wish to become immersed in this Province's very rich history.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

No doubt, the Province is very proud of our historic sites, but let me say to the minister, if you want to talk of historic sites, come and see the majestic buildings in Hopedale. Come to Hebron, visit Nachvak and Hebron Fjords where the caribou roam and the polar bears roam. Come to the North Coast of Labrador and see where the Aboriginal people, the first people in this Province, built their houses and their homes.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the caribou herds that roam the hills on the North Coast of Labrador would welcome free admission, not only on Sundays but every day of the week, and welcome tourists to come and hoof the hillsides on a sunny day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Minister, I say to you again, if there is anything you can do to promote the North Coast of Labrador for these events, we welcome any help that this government can give; because, when it comes to historic sites, culture and history, the riding of Torngat Mountains on the North Coast of Labrador takes a back seat to nobody.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister, also, for the advance copy of his statement.

I, too, have a suggestion for the minister which is a creative idea also. Last week I was at the opening, in The Rooms, of the new exhibit on The Battery, which was a joint effort of The Rooms with the Folklore Department of Memorial University; and, of course, in September that exhibit will shut down at The Rooms. I have a creative idea for how that could be put in a small building at the entrance to The Battery and be a permanent cultural site information centre, so I would be happy to talk to the minister about that later on.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we have all heard about the 6,000 reports done on 3,500 people by the radiologist who has been suspended from the Burin Peninsula Health Centre. What is not known at this point is who comprises these 3,500 people affected. Clearly, many more people had various testing done at this centre since November of last year when this radiologist was hired.

I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: Given the fear and stress being experienced by all who had testing done by a radiologist at the Burin Peninsula Health Centre, will he order Eastern Health to contact all 3,500 people affected so that others will not be worrying needlessly, waiting to hear if they are affected by this travesty?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, Eastern Health, as we speak, in the last couple of days, have had some people on the ground on the Burin Peninsula, in the Burin Peninsula Health Centre, available to talk with patients. Anyone who has any concerns can come in and meet with them to talk about their particular inquiry. They have established a toll-free line where anyone who wants to inquire about the status of their report, to make that call and someone will be able to provide them with some information and answer their questions.

Thus far, I think, Mr. Speaker, as of midday today, there have been some thirty-six calls received from patients who have been inquiring about the status. Most of them have, obviously, expressed some concern about their individual circumstance, but we are very much appreciative of the fact that Eastern Health came out so publicly and openly and shared the information, and glad to be able to have the opportunity to call someone and actually talk to them about their issue and have some questions answered.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, what I am asking the minister to do is to put himself in the place of those patients who really do not know if they are affected or not, and we are not just talking 3,500 people here, it could be 10,000 people. Anyone who ever had a test done by a radiologist at the Burin Peninsula Health Centre does not know if they are being impacted or not.

I am asking you again: Will you order Eastern Health to contact all 3,500 so that at least the others can be put out of misery?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite, she is doing it again, and I ask her please, on behalf of the people on the Burin Peninsula in this case, not to be fearmongering. To take 3,500 patients that have been identified, and we know that there are 3,500 patients, and to now somehow or other extrapolate that into 10,000 people potentially impacted, that is totally irresponsible, fearmongering, sending shock waves to the Burin Peninsula unnecessarily.

I say, Mr. Speaker, very clearly, the number here is very precise. We are able to calculate and determine exactly who has been impacted. There is one radiologist involved in this issue. We know the time that the person started to work. We know the time that they stopped working on May 10. They have been billing MCP for the procedures that they have done, so through a simple mechanism we are able to identify each patient. We know the exact number and it is not 10,000, and it is not close to it, I say, Mr. Speaker.

The point here, Mr. Speaker, is that the people on the Burin Peninsula -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer quickly.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The people on the Burin Peninsula will not just have a number where they can be called or have someone from Eastern Health call. What Eastern Health is in the midst of doing right now is identifying a pool of radiologists to redo these exams in a very timely fashion. In fact, they, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair asks all member of the House for their co-operation. The Chair would ask the members answering questions, if they could keep their time approximately to one minute, then we can get in all the questions that we should.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yet again, the minister is trying to talk out and talk out and saying absolutely nothing. The point here is that there are two radiologists at this centre in Burin, two. One radiologist has been suspended, but nobody knows of all the people who have had tests done at the Burin Peninsula Health Centre who did what test. Unless these 3,500 people are contacted so that others can be put at a fair - give it a time frame. Contact them within two weeks and if you do not hear from anyone within two weeks then you do not have to worry. Minister, there are more than 3,500 people affected here.

The minister said this review process could take from four to six weeks. There are thousands of people who do not know today how they are affected. In fact, the treatment they have received could very well have been based on a wrong diagnosis.

I ask the minister: Will each of the 3,500 individuals be informed of the outcome of the review of their file as it is completed, or will they have to wait four to six weeks until all 6,000 are completed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, once again, the member opposite has got her facts wrong. I did not say it will take four to five weeks. Eastern Health has said it will take four to five weeks, but four to five weeks is not acceptable. Four to five weeks is too long. This morning I have instructed Eastern Health to ensure that these are all redone within a ten-day period. If it requires bringing in -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: - radiologists from some other province, if it requires taking these films and sending it out to another jurisdiction, whatever it takes in terms of human resources, in terms of financial resources, I have directed Eastern Health to have these exams done within a two-week period. Within that two-week period, as the results come back, the referring physician who referred the person for the exam in the first place will get a new report back, either confirming the initial test results were as they were initially reported, or if there is a change the new results will be reported. It will happen as the results come back. We made a commitment that we will have them done within two weeks because four to five weeks is not acceptable to us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to hear the minister is telling Eastern Health what to do because that means that you control Eastern Health.

Mr. Speaker, between the date that problems with the hormone receptor tests were identified and the date that the retests were completed, some seventeen months lapsed. Mr. Speaker, had Eastern Health or this government released the information about these faulty tests upfront in May, 2005, some of the affected individuals, or women, could have sought other tests elsewhere and arrange for appropriate treatments elsewhere, whether that be inside of this country or outside.

I ask the minister: Knowing that this was a possibility, why did you and your predecessors decide to keep the information about the faulty testing secret?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I want to correct something. The members opposite have been saying this for two or three days now. There was no attempt here to withhold information. There was no attempt here to try to conceal anything. There was no attempt to cover up anything. These are the words that have been used over recent days and I want to ensure people in this House and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that is not what happened in this case here at all.

Eastern Health's primary focus was ensuring that they had accurate tests, and that is why they sent out some 900-and-some-odd tests to get redone. That was their initial focus. As soon as they had the test results back their focus was on ensuring that the patients knew and the patients all understood about their individual tests.

In fact, members opposite sat in a presentation this past week. For two days they had presentations. One of the slides that they were shown was very clearly in October, 2005 - not eighteen months later, as you just suggested, but in October, 2005. They indicated to you in recent days that they, in fact, made contact with all of the patients who were impacted. Eastern Health's primary focus was to ensure that those individuals who needed a change in their treatment regime, they were contacted and that changed. Those individuals who had -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, the Speaker asks the minister if he could keep his responses to approximately a minute. This is the protocol we follow.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister himself is on record in the papers in this Province as saying that the information was not released because of a threat of litigation. Minister, you also said that all of these people affected by those tests - so it is 900-and-some-odd individuals who were notified before October, 2005. That is not the information we were provided by Eastern Health, I say to the minister, and some of them were into the fall of 2006. Again, some of them were never notified, I say to the minister. So, the information you just gave was not completely true.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health admitted yesterday that he did not seek legal advice from the Department of Justice as to whether the results of the faulty hormone receptor tests should be made available to the public. Instead, the only legal advice that Eastern Health and government received came from a law firm representing the insurance company of Eastern Health.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the minister has already stated that litigation costs were balanced against health concerns. I ask the minister: Why would government accept the legal opinion of a law firm who was working for an insurance company, rather than seek the advice from your own Department of Justice?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I need to put the member's preamble into some kind of context, because this is very important. Let me finish what I started to say the first time.

I had indicated clearly to you, and you know very well, because you sat in the room, as I understand, together with the rest of your colleagues, and Eastern Health started to tell you, and told you, as I started to tell you a minute ago, that in October 2005, not eighteen months after May, but in October 2005, they started to make contact with those patients whose tests had to be sent outside of the Province. They started to tell those individuals whose test results had come back that their treatment regime had to change.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: As the test results started to come back - and all of them were back in February, so I do not know how you get eighteen months from May to February, I really do not know, but that is not eighteen months.

Secondly, Eastern Health's focus was to ensure that the test results that were done during that period 1997-2005 were, in fact, accurate. They made an effort to ensure that they had good information to treat their patients. They sent 900-and-some-odd test results out to be redone. As the information came back, they started to inform patients.

Their primary focus was on informing patients so that their treatment would not be compromised. Their primary focus was not in ensuring that the Opposition knew. Their primary focus was not to ensure that the media knew -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair appreciates the great sensitivity of the questions, and the need to have the answers, but we ask members for their co-operation.

The Chair passes the matter back to the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I questioned the Minister of Health as to why the people of the Province were led to believe that all hormone receptor testing for women affected by breast cancer was being done in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As confirmed yesterday by Eastern Health, the only testing now being completed in this Province is for patients in the Eastern Health region. Testing for women in Labrador, Western and the Central region continues to be sent to Mount Sinai Hospital in Ontario.

The minister later stated in the media that he was not aware of the circumstance, and committed to investigating the reasons for this.

I ask the minister: Now that you have had the opportunity to investigate, why are these tests being sent out of the Province and not being done in the Centre of Excellence in St. John's?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, let me correct the member again today. I did not say all of the tests were done in this Province. I said the lab reopened in February. I said the service recommenced in February. That is correct, the facts. If you are going to ask questions, get your facts right.

Now, to get to the substance of your question, I said earlier in this House that Eastern Health has created a Centre of Excellence within the Eastern Health Authority. It is located at the Health Sciences Centre. It includes a team of oncologists, radiologists and pathologists dealing with cancer.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a process here. Let me explain it. I may have to get into two shifts of questions to get my answer out, but it is an important point.

Here is the issue: Prior to the whole issue surfacing in May 2005, what was happening in this Province, the Eastern Health Authority, the tests that were being performed within Eastern Health on behalf of those patients, they were being done in St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: What was happening was, the tests were performed here, the pathologist was interpreting them and the pathologist was reporting them. All the other three authorities were sending in their specimens for testing and Eastern Heath were taking the tests, performing them, but sending them back to the other three authorities for reporting and for interpretation.

What is happening now, Mr. Speaker, -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, there are two facts. One, not all of the people have been notified. The second fact was, in answer, it did speak to the women of Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe that includes Labrador, Central and Western.

Mr. Speaker, we have been advised by some women who have been impacted by the incorrect hormone receptor test results that they were not initially told that the results were wrong. Instead, these individuals had the impression they were part of a focus group or study looking into the results of breast cancer testing.

I ask the minister: Is it true that these women whose test results were inaccurate were not given the full details once it was discovered?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Before I get to that one, let me answer the first question he posed.

As I was saying, the other three authorities were sending their tests into Eastern Health Authority to have the test performed, and Eastern Health Authority would send it back. The pathologists back in the other three regions would interpret it and would report it to the physician.

What is now changing is, in the future, on a go-forward basis, all of the tests from across the Province will come into Eastern Health. Eastern will not only perform the tests, but the pathologists there will interpret it at the Centre of Excellence and will report it back to the physician.

That transition, that shift, has not yet occurred. The lab only reopened in February. The lab wants to be able to ensure that it is up to speed, it has made that transition, and that some standards need to be put in place for the transition of the specimens from the other regions.

That is the long answer to your very short question, but you need to understand the facts. These, Mr. Speaker, are questions that are very technical in nature in some cases. When you start asking pieces of a question, and only taking pieces of an answer, and running with it in the media, as you have been doing, you create a lot of unnecessary anxiety for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we talked about one of the reasons why the tests were not all being done in the Centre of Excellence in St. John's was because of a shortage of pathologists.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have a fair grasp on what the facts are, but the minister also stated yesterday that compensation packages for pathologists were being implemented, that they would make their salaries competitive with their counterparts across the country. This compensation request has been before government for two years, but only approved last week when the results of inaccurate testing for breast cancer were made public.

I ask the minister: Knowing the challenges that exist in the Province as a result of pathologist shortages, why did it take government over two years to address this significant problem?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have said in this House in the last two or three days that the issue of pathologists, the recruitment and supply of pathologists in Newfoundland and Labrador, is not unique to this Province. Right across this country, we have a shortage of pathologists in the entire country. As a country, each and every province, as an entire country, we do not generate enough pathologists to satisfy the demand in the country. In fact, even larger provinces like Ontario - Ontario today, for example, Mr. Speaker, is experiencing a major shortage in pathologists.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: It is not unique to this Province, I say, Mr. Speaker. It is not unique to this Province at all. We have had some real good success. I said in this House the other day that we had some twenty-one positions at Eastern Health. Unfortunately, we have had some turnover. In that same period we have had thirty-six, I think it is - thirty-odd, or thirty-six, I think, is the precise number - of pathologists filling those twenty-one positions, so we have had some real good success in recruitment. We have some challenges in some of the retention issues, but we have had some real good success in recruiting capable, competent pathologists to provide services to the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will continue from yesterday when I was attempting to get some answers to my questions. While government may not like the questions, of course, it is very important, the actual facts of what ministers knew about this inaccurate breast testing debacle and what actions or inactions they had on this issue.

I ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who was the former Minister of Health during part of this time frame involving this matter: Did you, sir, at any time consult or seek advice from the Department of Justice regarding the inaccurate testing results?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the member opposite, if you are not going to listen to questions at least read Hansard from the day before, because I answered that question perfectly clear yesterday. In fact, I think I answered it about five times in five different ways and today we are getting the same question. The answer I gave yesterday was very clearly, the Department of Health and Community Services did not seek a legal opinion from Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The answer will show that my question was directed to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

My next question is for the current Minister of Justice, who was a former Minister of Health for the longest period of time while this investigation was ongoing, from March 2006 to January 2007. According to officials with Eastern Health, the minister was given numerous briefings and updates about the retesting results but the issue was never made public.

I ask the current Minister of Justice, former Minister of Health: Can you and will you tell us, were you at any time or did you at any time consult with or seek advice from the Department of Justice regarding this issue?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many more times I can answer the same question in a different way. Let me try a different answer, Mr. Speaker. Let's see if he can get this one. Regardless of who was the Minister of Health and Community Services, the Department of Health and Community Services did not seek a legal opinion from the Department of Justice on this issue.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is a slightly different answer, maybe we will get through this time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the record, I am not asking if the department asked. I am asking specific persons who filled the role of minister.

My next question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the current Attorney General and a former Acting Minister of Justice: Were you, sir, at any time consulted or discussed or made any recommendations or provided any advice to government on this particular issue?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I am not certain, Mr. Speaker, how any minister in this House could answer a question that was never asked. As I have said before, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Health and Community Services and the Ministers of Health and Community Services did not seek a legal opinion from the Department of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the current Minister of Finance, the former Minister of Justice: Were you, sir, consulted or did you at any time discuss this issue or make any recommendations or provide any advice to government regarding this issue?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: If I get asked this question any more I am just going to replay it, because the answer is the same.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Health and Community Services, the Ministers of Health and Community Services have not asked the Department of Justice or the Minister of Justice an opinion on this issue.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

My final question is for the Minister of Health.

Minister, did you at any time, when you became aware of this issue, advise or seek advice or discuss this matter with the Premier, and if so, when?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I discussed this issue, I think it was two weeks ago. I cannot give you an exact date but it would have been about two weeks ago. This issue was raised in the House of Assembly, I think it was one day last week. I will get the exact date for you because I want to be precise in my answer, but it was a very recent conversation that I did have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just one point of clarification, supplementary to that question. Can the minister be more specific? And I will be more specific in my questioning. Did you only discuss this issue with the Premier after it has now become a matter of public record, or did you at any time, before this was discussed and raised in this House of Assembly, discuss the issue with the Premier?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: This issue, Mr. Speaker, has been a public issue since October, 2005. Anyone who has lived in this Province in 2005 would have been very much aware of the media coverage of the issue in 2005; would have been very much aware of the ads being placed by Eastern Health during 2005 asking people to call a toll-free number to get in touch with them about their test results. So, this has been a public issue for quite some time. In fact, I recall, since about October, 2005, it was well publicized in the papers throughout this Province. It has been a public issue for quite some time, I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary to the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just, again, for clarification, because we do not get exactly straight answers from this minister. I ask you again, minister - not whether this was a public issue. I am asking you, before this matter arose in this Chamber in the last week or two, did you discuss this issue, going back to when you became the Minister of Health, at any time with the Premier? Now that is pretty straightforward.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I told you a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker. I gave the member opposite an answer a moment ago. Rather than giving an approximate date, I will just check my notes and I will tell you exactly when I had the discussion with him. I will get that for you and let you know, but it was in the recent past that I had the discussion.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

On Tuesday, the minister announced that there was a tremendous compensation package now in place for pathologists; a package, I would like to note, that only arrived officially this morning at the offices of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister said that this compensation package is on a par with Atlantic Canada, however, evidence here is that the pathologists that the labs are losing, especially the lab in Eastern Health, the pathologists are going to Ontario. I am sure the minister must realize that the Province is competing with the whole of Canada, not just with Atlantic Canada.

Why then is the government not making a real investment in our system to keep medical specialists in the Province by making the stipends competitive nationally, not just with Atlantic Canada?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, across this country, not just today, not yesterday, but for years and years now, across this entire country there are health professionals, there are educators, there are many other disciplines where there are great differences, great variances in compensation packages; whether it is the salary piece or the benefit piece, but there are great variances across this country. We have always attempted to make sure that we are competitive, particularly with Atlantic Canada. We may not always have the same kind of financial resources that some other richer provinces may have, but we have always attempted - in fact, since we formed government we have always tried to ensure that the compensation package, the total compensation package that we provide to people who work in public service in this Province, is provided with a competitive package that makes us competitive with, particularly Atlantic provinces. In some cases we are competitive on a national scale, but we will not have, I say, Mr. Speaker - it is going to be very challenging for a Province like Newfoundland and Labrador to always be able to say we have the best compensation package of any jurisdiction in the country. In fact, we will frequently be challenged to say that we have a compensation package that is equal to the best in the country, so we will always try to be competitive within the fiscal capacity that we have as a Province.

We believe that the recent announcement of what we are providing to pathologists, because it is consistent with what we are doing for oncologists in the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, the Speaker is trying to keep the responses and questions to within a minute

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to speak practically. You know, the tremendous package the minister is talking about, and I admit it looks like a good package in comparison to what is there now, it brings the salary of pathologists to a maximum of $241,000. The four residents who are now leaving Newfoundland and going to Ontario, they are going to be starting at $330,000. That is a difference of $89,000.

How does the tremendous package make us competitive with the lowest paid pathologists in Ontario?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, one of the very common problems when you start making some comparisons of salaries is just that whole issue, the use of the terminology.

One of the things we need to be very careful of, when we talk salaries, it is actually what you get on your paycheque. When you start looking at the benefits, there might be educational leave allowances in there, there might be opportunities for continuing medical education, and whether or not we are paying for their medical malpractice insurance. All of those things become a part of the benefit package. So, when you are looking at a total compensation package, you have to incorporate all of those in making you comparisons.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, there is a difference in living in Newfoundland and Labrador. We would like to think that there are some advantages to living in this Province. There are some very big issues with respect to lifestyle, a place to raise a family, the cost of living here relative to what it might be in downtown Toronto, so you have to look at the market you are competing in, I say, Mr. Speaker.

She used the term, practically speaking. Well, you do have to look at this from a very practical perspective and not just look at the salary piece when you are making a comparison.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to give notice, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that on tomorrow, Monday, May 28, this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. and not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to present another petition. I will not read the prayer of the petition because it is similar to what I presented last week and was passed by the officials at the House here with regard to general practioners, a shortage of general practitioners, I guess throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, but I speak in particular to the Conception Bay North area and in the Port de Grave district area.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, there are several local clinics there but many people in that particular area do not, at this present time, have a general practitioner at all. There are many other people who have to travel to St. John's or to Mount Pearl to see doctors who were in that area at one particular time and now they have to move here to the city to see them on a regular basis.

I guess the biggest concern that people are having there now, the word is out that two other general practitioners will be leaving that area some time this summer, Mr. Speaker, and that is going to create a tremendous backlog of people who will not have a general practitioner.

The main problem with it, Mr. Speaker, is this: Once people do not have a general practitioner and they call the clinics trying to get in to see somebody, they are referred to the emergency unit at Carbonear Hospital. This is where the problem is created. Many people go to the unit at Carbonear and the staff there, at the present time, even with emergencies, their workload is tremendous, Mr. Speaker, and a lot of stress is added to them, but when you have people coming in who - everyone who goes to a doctor thinks that their situation is an emergency. Many people are going to the emergency units who should be dealt with by their general practitioners, but unfortunately they do not have any.

Mr. Speaker, I know there are many other health issues in our particular area of major concern. We know full well that the long-term care facility - we have been told, or I was told during Estimates - this issue is being reviewed again. However, we know back about four years ago that the Conception Bay North area was number one on a priority list for a long-term care facility. We also know that the Alzheimer's unit was closed out last year at the Harbour Lodge in Carbonear. I asked questions, if there was any possibility of that returning. I was told that this would be reviewed and probably all put together when a new long-term care facility would be brought to the area; but, Mr. Speaker, the main issue and the main concern that people have today is the shortage of general practitioners in that area.

I call upon the minister and the government, and urge the government to take a serious look; because, by having a shortage of general practitioners in the local clinics, there is added stress and burdens placed on other staff who work at the hospital in Carbonear - and not only in Carbonear; the same is here at the hospitals in St. John's. So, I call upon the minister once again to put into place a plan for the retention of local doctors.

I was told during the Estimates meeting that what we do now, like, if someone is training to be a doctor, if they have two years of student loans, they are compelled to stay here in the Province for two years. I believe the government should look at a plan to make sure our local gentlemen, men and women, who are training to be general practitioners, there should be a plan in place that they would be more or less given a good package that they can stay here in the Province for a longer period of time and that would alleviate the burdens placed on the emergency units in our hospitals.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Furthers petitions?

Orders of the Day.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion 10. I would like to move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn today, May 24, at 5:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House of Assembly not adjourn today, Thursday, May 24, at 5:30 o'clock

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. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion 11. I would like to further move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn today, May 24, at 10:00 o'clock.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House of Assembly not adjourn today, Thursday, May 24, at 10:00 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. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion 4. I move that the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act. (Bill 20)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act. (Bill 20)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act," carried. (Bill 20)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act, be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 20 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: A bill, An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act. (Bill 20)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act, has now been read a first time.

When shall this bill be read a second time?

MR. RIDEOUT: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 20 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, motion 5, I ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991. (Bill 21)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991. (Bill 21)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce the said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991," carried. (Bill 21)

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991. (Bill 21)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991, has now been read a first time.

When shall this bill be read a second time?

MR. RIDEOUT: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

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

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Minister of Municipal Affairs have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Taxation Of Utilities And Cable Television Companies Act. (Bill 22)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Taxation Of Utilities And Cable Television Companies Act. (Bill 22)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs shall have leave to introduce the said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Taxation Of Utilities And Cable Television Companies Act," carried. (Bill 22)

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Taxation Of Utilities And Cable Television Companies Act. (Bill 22)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 22, An Act To Amend The Taxation Of Utilities And Cable Television Companies Act, has now been read a first time.

When shall this bill be read a second time?

MR. RIDEOUT: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

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

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Motion 7, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Government Services have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 23)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 23)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce Bill 23?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act," carried. (Bill 23)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 23 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 23 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: A bill, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 23)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 23 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 23 be read a second time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

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

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, Motion 8, that the Minister of Education have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997. (Bill 24)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Education shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. Minister of Education shall have leave to introduce Bill 24?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997," carried. (Bill 24)

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

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 24 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act to Amend The Schools Act, 1997. (Bill 24)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 24, An Act to Amend The Schools Act, 1997, has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 24 be read a second time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

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

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would now like to move to Order 9 in Orders of the Day, second reading of a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code. (Bill 8)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 8 be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code." (Bill 8)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am pleased to rise today to introduce Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code.

Mr. Speaker, over the last decade the appropriateness of mandatory retirement has increasingly been questioned. Many other Canadian provinces have or are planning to abolish mandatory retirement. To facilitate this movement in the law and policy, on May 26, 2006 the Human Rights Code was amended to eliminate age discrimination in employment for the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador who are sixty-five years of age or older. Employees are now able to choose for themselves how long they wish to remain in the workforce, so long as they are capable of performing their jobs. Workers will be given the option to choose their own retirement date based upon lifestyle, circumstances and priorities and will not be required to retire based upon an arbitrary number. This important change makes sense, as it promotes the dignity and sense of self worth of older employees.

The amendment to the code that was passed last spring was suspended until May 26, 2007, to allow persons and organizations the opportunity to review their practices and policies, and take whatever action is believed necessary to facilitate the cessation of mandatory retirement. As a result, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador conducted an extensive review of its policies, procedures, pension plans, insurance benefits and agreements in preparation of abolishing mandatory retirement.

During our review, section 95(a) of the Human Rights Code was determined to be problematic in two ways. Firstly, this section has been interpreted as possibly permitting a continuation of practice of mandatory retirement in the private and public sector so long as an employer has a good faith retirement or pension plan which requires retirement at a certain age. To continue to allow mandatory retirement at a fixed age based upon a good faith pension plan would be contrary to the policy decision of this government and the House to eliminate mandatory retirement. In other words, if this provision was permitted to remain as currently worded, there would potentially be a major loophole in the code permitting the continued practice of mandatory retirement. Secondly, discussions with the legal counsel have indicated that this section as currently drafted may not survive the scrutiny of a charter challenge.

In order to address these two problems, I propose the adoption of the amendment contained in this bill. This bill will disallow termination of employment based on the terms or conditions of a good faith retirement or pension plan. In other words, mandatory retirement will no longer be permissible because of a pension plan or retirement plan requiring cessation of employment at a particular age. This change, I note, is consistent with the policy direction of this government. Section 95(a) would continue in force to allow age distinctions or differentials to be drawn to accommodate the actuarial requirements of pension plans.

Mr. Speaker, it has been determined that mandatory retirement is no longer appropriate for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The present amendment to the code facilities the May 2006 amendment and removes any uncertainty as to the relationship between mandatory retirement and the pensions plans.

This bill promotes consistent government policy and removes uncertainty in the code. It allows age differentials to remain, which are necessary for the operation of pension plans.

Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to discuss this bill, and I encourage all hon. members in the House to support this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words in second reading here of Bill 8. Of course, second reading is an opportunity where the minister gives us an overview of what the legislation is about and what it is intended for. I am not quite sure, from listening to him, if he has a detailed and substantive grasp of what he read, but that is another issue.

I would say to the minister, first of all, with regard to the issue itself of mandatory retirement at age sixty-five, it is not only a matter of dignity and self-worth of the employee; in our society today it is an absolute necessity. We have all kinds of reports coming out of other parts of the country, at least, that to insist upon someone retiring at age sixty-five is certainly a detriment to our booming economy - or their booming economy out there, I should say. That is one good reason.

I am sure the Speaker himself, of course, he might be leaving politics but I do not see our Speaker going off to pasture any time soon. I would think he is probably going to want to keep his brain engaged and pursue some other things, so it is an absolute necessity, actually, in our environment today, and economy, to have this.

I would like to ask the minister, and I am sure he will get an opportunity, too, when he gets up in the detailed piece of this, I would like to know - because we passed the piece last May regarding taking it out as a mandatory age, and we allowed a one year period to do the consultation with the various sectors - I would like to know some detail as to who exactly the minister or the department consulted with during that period or who, for example - the officials in Finance, I would think, would have probably been the people who did the consultation as opposed to Justice itself. So, I am just wondering if maybe one of the ministers can clue us in as to who was consulted, what was the nature of that consultation, and what was required to be done in order to get us to this point today, because we made the amendment back in May 2006 and gave a year for certain things to be done so that we would be in a position this year to move ahead. I am just curious, and I am sure the people in the public might like to know, well, what happened in that one year period.

We have three bills. We have the Human Rights bill, and we have the next two, for example, under the pensions act, that are involved here, so maybe some detail in that regard so at least if we are going to be dealing with these three bills today, as I understand it, we would have set the scene now when we are having this discussion and we would know, for the whole afternoon at least, what those consultations were involved with.

I would also appreciate it if the minister could give me some understanding of, what is a good faith pension plan? We are dealing with a piece of legislation here. I would like to know, and I am sure people in the public would like to know. I know what we are doing here. We are saying, under the Human Rights Code, that in the future you cannot say, in an employment contract, I gather, or in a pension plan, that a person must retire at a certain age, a mandatory retirement age, because that would then be grounds of discrimination.

Take it a step further: maybe some explanation as to what is a good faith pension plan versus any other kind of pension plan? Is there some distinction we are making here between what is done in good faith and what is another kind of pension plan? Some explanation from the minister when we get to that stage would be much appreciated.

I would like to try to understand, of course, if we are going to be voting on something here. I cannot say at this point - I assume I have no problem with it, but I would like to be as informed as possible, and I find these second readings and committee stages a great time - for anything I do not understand - an opportunity to educate myself, so I would certainly appreciate some explanation of that.

I notice, as well, and I have to say this in all seriousness, the minister stands up with his written notes and talks about he has had legal advice as to this issue might not survive a charter challenge. It is nice to see that at least he got some legal advice on this issue, because we have another very important issue going on in this Province - raging, actually, in the public domain - and that is the issue of the breast cancer screening debacle. We certainly never had this minister up here today, or any other time, acknowledging that he had anything to do, or sought any advice on that issue, but we get it here in a case of the Human Rights Code.

The minister is on his feet when it comes to making this amendment to Human Rights, but he is not so apt to get on his feet when it came to Question Period, and he had a direct question put to him, to get up and give an answer to the people of this Province. I see something dramatically wrong with that. I see something drastically wrong with that. I think, actually, there was an obligation to get up and explain it, because you do not want to leave people - sometimes, they say, it is what you don't say that is as telling as when you do say something.

I would appreciate, actually, knowing if the minister can tell us who he got that advice from, why this might not survive a charter challenge. Has it been challenged anywhere else? Was this non-discrimination, or putting this in our Human Right Code, taking it out, as a discriminatory piece? Has this been challenged anywhere? I would like some further details on that type of information before we - or at least I - get to a point of having to vote on this.

Given that we are only talking about a couple of sections here, normally in second reading you deal with the generalities and in Committee you deal with the specifics of each clause. Really, we only have two clauses here that are very much the same. I guess the questions that I ask now will be the same questions that I would ask in the Committee stage.

That is all I have to say at this point. I cannot say whether I am or am not in favour of it. I would like to have this further information, and I would like to be further educated by the minister. I look forward to listening to the comments of other members to see what they have to add to this piece of legislation and we will see where it goes after that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Continuing debate at second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Justice, if he speaks now, will close debate at second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

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

I was not sure if other members wanted to have some input on this, but obviously not.

I will endeavour to find out what the legal advice surrounding the survival of a challenge to the charter on this is, for the member opposite, and what consultations were done by the department over the past year.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 8, An Act To Amend 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 Human Rights Code. (Bill 8)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code, has now been read a second time.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Human Right Code," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 8)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to move second reading of Order 12, a bill, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 16)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991." (Bill 16)

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

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

It is my pleasure to rise in my place today to speak to this legislation, Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members may recall, that a year ago this House amended the Human Rights Code to include age as a prohibited grounds of discrimination. That meant, Mr. Speaker, that it was no longer possible to say to somebody, to say to a senior that that person had to retire, had to mandatorily retire from their position, solely on the basis that they had reached a certain age. It is now discriminatory to do that, Mr. Speaker. The effect of that is that we have effectively eliminated mandatory retirement. Because of that legislation, which will come into effect in May of this year, in a couple of days, because of the major change in the law brought about by the amendment last May, we gave the people of this Province, we gave the employers in this Province a year to get their affairs in order so that they could be ready for when this legislation came into effect. Government, of course, is an employer and government has now to amend its legislation to comply with the Human Rights Code as well, as we now implement the end of discrimination against people on the basis of their age.

Three of the government's pension plans contain provisions directing that employees shall retire once a certain age has been reached. It is necessary for us today to amend those three pieces of legislation, the Public Service Pensions Act, The Teachers' Pensions Act and the Uniformed Services Pensions Act, to amend the clauses in the three pieces of legislation that people are required to retire at a particular age, to eliminate mandatory retirement from our pension legislation, and to enable government employees to continue to accrue pension credits and make contributions matched by their employer until the earlier of the date that their employment is actually terminated, because they have terminated their employment, or the year that they attain the age of seventy-one - because under the Income Tax Act of Canada any registered pension, and these are registered pensions, you have to draw down the monies under the pensions in the year in which you turn seventy-one. That is a recent change that took place in the federal budget. Prior the that, the age of sixty-nine. So it was recently amended by the Government of Canada to make the age seventy-one.

There is also a policy change - I will just check my notes here, Mr. Speaker. As a result of the changes, as I said earlier, employees who participate in our Public Service Pension Plans and who decide to work beyond the age of sixty-five will now be allowed to continue to contribute to their pension plans and to earn additional pension credits. Similarly, teachers under the Teachers' Pension Plan, and correctional officers and police officers under the Uniformed Services Pensions Plan will - if they choose to continue working beyond age sixty - be able to continue to participate in their pension plans, they will be able to continue to work and they will be able to continue to contribute to their plans and, therefore, receive enhanced benefits when they retire.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there have been employees who have exceeded the age of sixty-five and who have not retired, but they have continued to work, and they will continue to do so up to a couple of days. When those employees did, in fact, continue to work, they signed an acknowledgment or an agreement with government acknowledging that they would not be able to continue to contribute to their pension plan. What this legislation does, it now recognizes the fact that mandatory retirement has been eliminated and it gives the same benefits to these employees. It gives them the opportunity now to contribute to their pension plan and continue to enhance their pension plan for that period of time when they could have retired but continued to work, up until May 26 of this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. T. MARSHALL: They will buy their contributions, but it will be the same as if they had been contributing all along.

The explanation notes in the bill pretty well sums this all up. As I say, the second paragraph says: The bill will additionally provide that current employees who have already reached normal retirement age before May 26, but who have continued in employment, they would be permitted to receive pensionable credit for services after their normal retirement age, subject to the terms and conditions of a ministerial directive.

Finally, the bill will also remove the thirty-seven-and-a-half year limitation on pensionable service and the 75 per cent of pensionable earnings limitation contained in the Uniformed Services Pension Act, 1991. Now that there is no mandatory retirement, there is no necessity to put a limit on either of these things.

There is a final amendment in here, Mr. Speaker, which allows someone who may have retired to enable them to come back to work. If they have retired and are on pension now, if they are under the age of seventy-one, the magic age set out in the Income Tax Act, if they wish to come back to work they can. Their pensions, of course, would be suspended but of course while they are working they can continue to accumulate additional pension benefits.

So, Mr. Speaker, with that, I would urge passage of Bill 16 so that our correctional officers, our police officers, our teachers and our public servants will no longer be discriminated against in their pension legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

[Technical difficulties]

MS THISTLE: The minister made note that people now really do not have to retire until they are eligible for a pension under the Income Tax Act, which is age seventy-one.

Now, there is section in this bill and it is section 16.(1)(b). I am kind of curious about that section. This section talks to the fact that, "...after the employee has used up all sick leave entitlement, he or she is unable to preform efficiently the duties of his or her position or the duties of an alternative position owing to incapacity that is medically certified to the satisfaction of the minister...".

I have always questioned that one because it gives the - minister, that is section 16.(1)(b), subsection 2. That always gives the power to the minister to make a final determination whether or not an employee who is medically incapacitated will face termination. So, I do not know, I think that should be relegated to some type of a board, a neutral board that would be entirely separate from the powers of the minister, someone who would look over the employee's complete work history and medical history rather than the onus of that being given to the minister to make a final determination. That might be something that the minister can take under review, because there are lots of powers being a minister of a certain department, and every department has certain powers that rest entirely on the minister's shoulders, but when it comes to actually terminating the employment of an employee who has been on the job all their working career and has found themselves in a medical situation, a sickness, and they have used up all their sick leave and whatever, and all options are closing off, I think it would be better to hand a situation like that over to a neutral panel rather than that sit on the minister's desks and the minister say yea or nay, that person has no further recourse in their government position.

I also wondered, Mr. Minister, whether or not the workers' compensation act would apply to people over the age of sixty-five. There has been some talk that the workers' compensation act may not be in effect once people reach the age of sixty-five. Now, this has been a concern, particularly in the private workplace, whether or not any business out there has the obligation to provide workers' compensation insurance to their employees, and whether or not that will be a part of the provincial government package for their employees.

The minister did say, when he was giving his introduction of the bill, that once a government employee who is in receipt of a pension plans to return to work, if they are under the age of seventy-one, their pension will be suspended and they will go on a normal salary.

I wonder, for those persons, those civil servants, who are already in receipt of a pension, and they decide to come back and work for the provincial government - and I know that their pension is suspended - will they have the opportunity then to continue to contribute and increase their pension from what it was when they retired?

I notice that there is going to be no limitation that is set out with this bill now. At one point, civil servants were not able to collect any more than 75 per cent of their working salary once they retired. After this comes into effect, which will actually be Saturday of this week, May 26, civil servants now who come back to work, the sky is the limit. So, if you have been one of those civil servants who retired and you are tired of doing what you are doing, watching the House of Assembly every day and going for a walk, you can now apply for a job within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and you can continue to contribute to a pension fund and you can spice up your pension fund when you retire for the second time. That is what it is all about.

Now, I do believe that there are probably too many retired people, particularly ex-politicians who are retired from the House of Assembly and they are now holding down big jobs within government. Of course, we are trying hard, or the government are supposedly trying hard, to entice young people to stay in this Province. I really do think that, particularly for politicians, they should not be permitted to come back into the workforce for the provincial government and start contributing again to a pension fund and have a jazzed up pension fund again when they retire for the second time. I believe there should be exemptions in those cases.

Now, a poor civil servant who probably retired on a small pension, who had worked for years under a small salary, and if it is deemed that the government cannot find a suitable candidate to fill a certain job, and they look at someone who has worked in the past for government, that is a different matter; but, someone who retires as being a Cabinet minister, and an MHA, and had probably twenty years in the House of Assembly, and they are going to collect a pension anywhere from $80,000 to $100,000, you would not be giving first preference for a job in government to those kinds of people, I do not think.

Mr. Speaker, I have looked over this bill and I know that, when you look at the aging population that we have right across our country, I can see why it is necessary to look at keeping people in the workforce, if they want; it is entirely at their own will. People still have the same benefits of retirement that they would have, and that is a package that is generated, particularly in this one - this is a government package that is negotiated and the terms are set out right from the start.

One part of this is that the bill is going to remove the magic age, magic years of service, which was always thirty-seven-and-a-half years, and also the magic pensionable earnings limitation. That was always 75 per cent of your salary.

I do not know if, by any chance, somebody could ever get to beyond 100 per cent. Is that a possibility, Mr. Finance Minister, that someone who comes back to work for government for the second time, on a different salary level, naturally, could ever get to the point - I am sure that could happen - when that person could actually make beyond 100 per cent of their initial salary? They certainly could, so I guess the sky is the limit. The contributions will be equal. There will be no change in the contributions from the government side or the employee side. They will have an advantage of working for the second time and increasing their pension.

There is one other section and it says, "The Bill would additionally provide that current employees who reached normal retirement age before May 26, 2007..." - that is this Saturday - "...but who have continued in employment would be permitted to receive pensionable credit for service after normal retirement age...".

That is something new, because there are people now who are qualified for retirement - I know several of them - within government who are currently qualified for retirement, and they will be by this Saturday, May 26. Now, as of May 26 or May 27, they are going to be permitted to work on and they are going to receive pensionable credit for service after that magic age of sixty-five years.

This is also "...subject to the terms and conditions of a ministerial directive." That power again belongs on the shoulders of the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. Is that saying to that particular employee that it is subject to the terms and conditions of a ministerial directive to the Minister of Finance?

I think if we are going to get involved in a retirement policy, or no retirement policy, up to age seventy-one, I think we need to look at - there are going to be a lot of things facing us when we have people over the age of sixty-five who want to stay in the workplace. Who will determine if a person over the age of sixty-five cannot keep up with the pace of their workload? Who will determine if a person over the age of sixty-five - maybe they are in a job where they are expected to do a lot of work, travel on the highway, do a lot of field trips. Who will determine if that person is not keeping pace with the other people in their workplace? Are there any provisions then for that person? Will they have to face the same penalties in their workplace as an ordinary person under the age of sixty-five? What happens if they have an illness that is particularly to people over sixty-five? It could be age macular disease, it could be Alzheimer's, it could be any number of age-related diseases. Who will determine whether or not they are fulfilling their role in their active day job with the provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador?

The reason I am asking these questions is because the explanatory notes on this bill, these two sections gives all that power to the minister's prerogative. Now the minister might say: I do not believe that guy out there can do a day's work, a good day's work for a good day's pay. You know, he is seventy years old and he is trotting in here in the morning and I do not believe we are getting value for our money, you know $120,000 we are paying that individual. It will be up to the minister at that point to say if that employee stays on or not. So, there is a lot of power left to the minister. The minister can decide if somebody is going to be terminated due to medical benefits running out. The minister can also decide on the terms and conditions of employment for someone over sixty-five. So, there is a lot left up to the minister.

Now, I know that employment is the number one concern for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. There was a recent survey done by government, just a few weeks ago, and out of all the questions that were asked all over the Province, it is interesting - of course, that was before this health care issue came up there ten days ago, but out of all the questions that were on resident's minds in this Province, the number one issue was jobs.

I looked at the make up of the population in this Province, and it is interesting that we are going to be appealing - by this new legislation that is coming here today, we are appealing to the people who are currently over fifty years of age and are considering their futures, whether it be retirement of extended career. The people over fifty currently in our Province numbers 180,000 people.

The Premier said recently that he is going to have a job fair, and I think it is taking place the first week in June. For the people in our Province who are over fifty, there are 180,000 of them. One hundred-and-eighty-thousand people are now over fifty years old. Now, within our provincial government, within our civil service, there is usually between - it depends on part-timers who work in the summertime and full-time people - sometimes it can go up to as high as 40,000 employees within the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Currently, the average age for our civil servants, our public servants in this Province is forty-nine years. Forty-nine years is the current age in our civil service here in this Province. The average age is forty-nine years. All of those people now will be considering: Will I continue to work on, work past sixty-five and boost up my pension or will I retire? So, it is another option that is out there for people who may have started off on a small salary and now that they have a chance to increase their pension - and people are living longer, lifestyles have changed. You are going to see a lot of empty nesters in their late fifties who probably might consider continuing to work.

I did not see anything in this bill for an option for part-time work, because there will be a lot of people over age sixty-five wanting part-time work. They do not want to be committed to nine to five or eight to four, but there will be another situation when - you know, there has to be a lot of wisdom out there, a lot of resources, a lot of talent built up in the job pool of people aged sixty-five that government can draw on and private industry can draw on.

What has not been addressed in this bill - and I guess the minister might consider it at a later date because this is all brand new, but I think he needs to strike a panel to look at the medical issues of employees over the age of sixty-five. He also needs to look into the issue of part-time employment and what the benefits might be, because you are going to see a lot of people over the age of sixty-five who might like to come to work on a part-time basis for consulting work or whatever. They have lots of knowledge and lots of talent to give to government.

I think the minister should strike some kind of a committee made up of current retired civil servants or those already in the workplace and continuing on to work beyond sixty-five because there is going to be a whole new set of issues that are going to come up for people who are working beyond sixty-five. In fact, you are going to have to look at our medical health plan as well. There are going to be issues coming up for people beyond sixty-five in the workplace who you would not even consider at this point today. There are also things like insurance, medications, travel. There is going to be a lot of - insuring people while they are travelling outside of the country on government work and they are passed sixty-five years old. There are so many issues concerning people over sixty-five. I do think it is a good idea to be able to work beyond sixty-five, if you wish to do that. I think what we are going to discover as we go along, there will be issues that we are not even contemplating today that will be necessary to address.

I do not know what is out there for private enterprise, whether or not they will be under the same guidelines as government when it comes to providing - the biggest issue for private enterprise is trying to provide health insurance for people beyond sixty-five. It is going to be a very costly venture for private enterprise to provide health insurance. Also, people beyond sixty-five, depending on the jobs they are in, might have more accidents if they are in situations where they have to be totally alert and so on. That is a known fact.

So, for private enterprise in particular, health benefits are going to be very expensive. Will they be able to receive Workers' Compensation in the private industry? I know we were talking about government employees only in this act, but I am sure there are lots of people out there wondering, how will it pertain to them in private enterprise?

I am in agreement with the act, but I would like for the minister, if he would, to answer some of the questions I have raised and we will take it from there.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now, he will close debate at second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

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

I want to thank the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans for her comments here today. She raised a number of very interesting issues. I think what is important today is to note that we are talking about specific pension legislation. It is about pensions we are dealing with here. We are trying to end discrimination against our seniors. We have brought in legislation effectively ending mandatory retirement, so we want to remove all of these discriminatory provisions from the three pension legislations that affect the government employees, the teachers, the correction officers and police officers.

Many of these issues will come up again when we talk about employment, when we talk about the attraction initiatives that the government must initiate to attract more employees, to retain more employees. I know we will be back here on the floor of this House dealing with those issues, such as health insurance, such as part-time workers and so on.

We are talking about pensions here. The hon. member did ask the question - I will deal with some of the questions she has asked - Can an employee who is out on a pension now, who returns to work, can they have their pension suspended, and while they are working continue to contribute to the pension plan, continue to rack up benefits under that pension plan? The answer to that is yes, that would only be fair and proper.

The hon. member did express concern about politicians coming back, politicians who are out on some fat pensions, and whether they would have the right to come back. I would just like to point out to everybody that we are amending three pieces of legislation, we are not amending the MHA pensions act. So, I think the answer to your question is no. I agree with the hon. member; that is good.

Mr. Speaker, in continuing, the hon. member also referred to section 16.(1)(b) of the legislation which talks about an employee shall be retired under a pension plan where, after the employee has used up all their sick leave benefits, he or she is unable to perform efficiently the duties of his or her position, or the duties of any alternate position, owing to incapacity because of a medical condition certified to the satisfaction of the minister is likely to be permanent from the date determined by the minister.

I just want to point out that this is not a new section, that this is the same section. We have not amended it, but I certainly will take under advisement the recommendation of the member that maybe this should go, as she said, to a neutral panel or for someone to rethink and take a look at this. I will be happy to do that.

With respect to the workers' compensation act, I will endeavour to get the answer to that question. I think the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, who is the minister responsible for the Workers Compensation Commission in this House, might be the more appropriate person to deal with that, and I will ask him to do so.

I thank hon. members for their comments today. I thank the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans. This is an important piece of legislation. It is going to end discrimination against our seniors, and we are all in favour of that. This particular legislation will end discrimination against our seniors in government pension legislation, and I urge all members to vote in favour of this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991, 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 Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 16)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 16 has now been read a second time.

When shall Bill 16 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. RIDEOUT: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 16)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call Order 15, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 15)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997." (Bill 15)

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

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, because the Human Rights Code will be amended to eliminate mandatory retirement at age sixty-five, effective May 26, 2007, the Pension Benefits Act, 1997, needs to be amended to comply with the Human Rights Code.

While at a minimum pension plan sponsors will be required to permit members to continue to make contributions and to accrue benefits beyond age sixty-five, they will be permitted to provide other options for employees to choose from. These options provide employers with greater flexibility, given that individual owners and members may have different needs. However, if the employer does provide options, the employee should have the right to choose which option suits his or her needs best.

This amendment is especially beneficial to someone who may not have worked enough time with their employer to receive their pension by age sixty-five. By eliminating the mandatory retirement age, those people who do not have enough service can continue working until they feel they are in a position to retire. These amendments will be cost-neutral to pension plans and will therefore have no impact on their financial stability.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to stand and respond to Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997. This is an important bill. I would think that it is falling in line with what the federal government is now doing, and also the Province.

By this bill here, I would like to ask the minister: Is government now going to take into consideration the transfer of new pension plans into the government, if it would make it easier for private plans to now be transferred to government plans? I wonder, is she going to expand now the current list of acceptable pensions that government now accepts from employers across the country, and expand that list so that we can look at private pensions being transferred? Because now there is an arrangement that many people have an option, who are working for governments outside of this Province, to transfer in their pensions to our Province, and there are also opportunities for private employers who have been recognized by this government to transfer their pensions with an arrangement from one province to another, but there are lots of companies out there today that are unable to do so.

In fact, about three years ago I had a request from an employee of a government plan in Ontario that did not have a reciprocal agreement with this Province, and yet his wife wanted to work in our Province. She was a teacher. She could have her plan transferred by way of a reciprocal agreement, but I think this person was probably - I cannot remember his line of work, but it was at a recognized business that was nationwide, and did not have an opportunity, through a reciprocal agreement with this Province, to transfer his pension. I don't know if the minister now, by amending the Pension Benefits Act today, is going to expand on that reciprocal agreement clause.

I would also like to ask the minister as well: Now, since that retirement age is not mandatory at sixty-five - she is saying there in the explanatory notes, "The proposed new section would also allow pension plans to provide various options to members working beyond age sixty-five..." Options: Now, is that options that would have to be approved by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to be recognized as a safe place to put your money?

I know that the Minister of Government Services, a part of her mandate is to ensure that people who are paying into pension plans are doing so within the regulations and guidelines of the Province. With this new bill here, we are going to see that members who work beyond age sixty-five will now have the option to cease contributing to the plan at age sixty-five and to received an increased pension on retirement or to commence receiving a pension at age sixty-five while continuing to work. Now, this is something brand new. What that means is that - say, for instance, somebody worked at Wal-Mart and they reached age sixty-five and they had a pension from Wal-Mart, and then within a month or two they decided to go to work for Tim Horton's, just as an example. They now have a new salary from Tim Horton's and they are going to be able to receive their former pension from Wal-Mart. That is what I am reading into this bill. Because you want to work at another job after age sixty-five, you can still receive a pension that you had from a former employer. That is what I am reading into this bill.

That is still a good option for people who reach retirement age because no employer now can discriminate after this and require that you cease employment at age sixty-five. If it is the choice of an individual that they want to retire, they can at sixty-five and then within a week or two or two or three years later, if they decide to take a new job, well then they can hold on and receive their former pension while they are working in the new job. That is what this bill is about.

That is a benefit because most people, prior to this bill and prior to federal government making their changes, would retire at age sixty-five, would take their pension, whatever it was, and that was it. Now they have an option, even through the private employer, where they can retire from one job, go to work in the next job. It will be strictly up to the employee and the new employer as to what kind of a retirement package is offered to the new employee. An employee coming to work for the second time can still maintain and hold on to and receive a pension from a former employer. There are many options out there in the private workplace and there are also options in the government workplace. This outlines what a person can do in private enterprise. What that means is that you can reach age sixty-five, take a pension from one employer, go to the next employer, get a salary and work on the next pension.

I do not have any problem with that particular bill, but I would like for the minister, if she could, just to answer the couple of questions that I asked.

Thank you very much.

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

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the participation. I think one of the things she asked about was the options, and there are two specific options that are included in the legislation. One is for the employee to receive a pension while continuing to work. Another is to cease making contributions and receive an increased pension at a later date. The plan sponsors may provide other options to the employees subject to the approval of the superintendent of pensions.

So, I thank my hon. colleagues for their participation and I move second reading of the bill.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997, 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 Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 15)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997, has now been read a second time.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Presently, Your Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 15)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would now like to call Order 4, which is second reading of a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 5)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991." (Bill 5)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am very pleased today to introduce another amendment to the Public Service Pensions Act. This amendment will eliminate the requirement that government pay $60 million annually into the Public Service Pension Plan for the purposes of addressing the unfunded liability of the plan.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members may recall, earlier this year I announced, on behalf of government, that government would make a contribution to the Public Service Pension Plan of $982 million. Now this money would be invested in the plan no later than June of this year, June 30 of this year, to address the unfunded pension liability. To date, $400 million has been paid into that plan and another $350 million has been borrowed. That leaves a balance outstanding of $232 million and that will be paid no later than June 30.

The money was borrowed at interest rates of between 4.5 per cent and 4.68 per cent. That is very low interest rates, Mr. Speaker. It is considerably lower than the 7.5 per cent at which the unfunded pension liability has been growing. Therefore, this will result in a considerable interest savings to the people of this Province. I believe the amount will be in the range of $27 million annually. This payment will result in the Public Service Pension Plan having a funded ratio of 84 per cent, as compared to a funded ratio of only 6 per cent before this commitment was made. In exchange for this payment, the unions, who are members of this plan, have agreed to amend the collective agreements to remove the requirement that the government pay $60 million annually into the Public Service Pension Plan. This amendment will reflect the terms of that agreement.

When this was announced, Mr. Speaker, you will recall that government wanted to address the unfunded pension liability. The people of this Province, the taxpayers of this Province, in fact, have a legal liability to pay pension benefits to its employees. So, it is part of the debt of the Province, it is part of our net debt. Unfortunately, we had a large pension liability, I think in the tune of $8.6 billion, but we have $6 billion in the pension fund already. That pension fund money is invested and each year there is added to that pension fund contributions of our employees, which contributions are matched by the government as employer. So the amount of money in the pension fund does increase every year. That money is then invested, and the investment returns of the fund have been quite outstanding over the years, over the long term. I forget the actual number, but the pension plan has done exceptionally well.

The problem, however, is that the taxpayers of this Province are committed legally to pay an unfunded pension liability of about $1.6 billion, or $2.6 billion I should say. Government is addressing that. The Auditor General, in his report of March 31, 2006, talked about this, talked about the fact that every year, even though government was contributing $60 million to this pension plan, the interest that they had to pay on the pension plan was growing by between $200 million and $300 million a year. So, even though government was making a contributions, even though the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador were contributing $60 million a year to attempt to deal with this problem, we were still falling further and further behind.

Government, based on the recommendations, have listened to the Auditor General's recommendation that government must manage its unfunded pension liability. So government essentially has gone out and borrowed these funds at very low rates of interest and, in effect, is switching a high rate loan for a low rate loan and, as a result of that, government should save annually about $27 million.

The other thing that this will do, and I am delighted that it will do it, is that it will now fund the sustainability of this pension plan to about 84 per cent or 85 per cent instead of 60 per cent. That means that a lot of pensioners out there who have always been faced with the uncertainty that their pension plan might go bankrupt - and I remember reading years ago that government's pension plans were not properly funded and they could run out of money by a certain period of time. Obviously, there are a lot of seniors out there who were concerned about that, and would be worried about that. I am pleased that the fund will now be sustainable and that will allay the concerns of many of our seniors out there, which I think is very, very important.

We are going to end that uncertainty. We are going to bring the fund to sustainability of 85 per cent and, of course, each year the contributions will continue to be invested by the employees and by the employers. Each year, those contributions will continue to be invested, they will continue to earn a return, and I look forward to the day when that pension fund is funded up to in excess of 100 per cent. When that day is reached, I look forward, and I know the Minister of Finance of the day will look forward, to sitting down with our unions and talking about enhancements to the plan once that day comes.

I am also delighted we are going to save money. We are going to save money for the taxpayers, about $27 million every year. Of course, we followed the advice of the Auditor General, which is extremely important.

Mr. Speaker, I would thank the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans for her anticipated speech this afternoon, and I would urge passage of this legislation.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I am delighted to respond to Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991.

As the minister just stated, there was a huge injection of cash into the pension fund, in particular the teachers' pension fund, almost $2 billion, which put it on a very good footing. The purpose of this bill is, now that there has been an injection of cash into our public service pension fund, government now wants to be taken off the hook, as they say, that they are not required now to put in the $60 million a year in repayment of the pension plan that was started, actually, by Brian Tobin in 1997. He was the first one to recognize that our pension plan was being depleted, and we made a conscious decision at that time to start paying back the funds to the pension plan. The minister, in this bill, is asking that the commitment be now dropped as the pension plan is now 80 per cent to 85 per cent funded.

I was curious to know what the returns have been like on the pension plan this year. I know the minister said that government undertook to borrow, to prop up the pension fund. The borrowing rate was between 4 per cent and 5 per cent, which is an excellent rate. I am wondering now what the investment return has been on the overall pension plan for the Province this year. I do hope that we are recovering a good rate of investment that will more than cover the cost of interest on the loan to fund the pension plan.

The one group that has been left out through all of this is the current retired public servants. These are the ones who make their voices known starting usually in December, right up until March, until the new budget is announced.

I know that there has not been a big outcry by the union leadership in support of those currently retired, but there are retired civil servants out there today who are on very small pensions, and those are ones who are probably beyond seventy years of age today. They would be. I heard the minister just say that once the pensioned fund is funded 100 per cent he will then turn his attention to indexing the pension for retired civil servants now. I would say to the minister, that a lot of those people won't be around when the Public Service Pension Fund is funded 100 per cent. A lot of those are in ailing health as we speak and are on a very modest income. They would certainly benefit from indexing to their current plans.

This government has had the good fortune of a Treasury that is full and overflowing. In fact, the Minister of Finance, when he gave his Budget here in this House on April 26, couldn't find a way to spend all of the money that was available to government. He couldn't find a way to spend all of the money that was available to government this year. What a wonderful position to be in. In fact, he had to leave $261 million, to try to find a way to spend that during the balance of the Budget year. Not too many governments find themselves in that position. He is lucky.

I remember what he said when he delivered his Budget Speech. It was at the opening of his Budget Speech. I just have to go back and look at it because it was so important. The minister started off, and he said - oh my, sometimes when you are looking for something on the spot like this you can never find it. The minister knows all about this because he was looking for some stuff a while ago. Anyway, I won't be able to quote his exact words because I don't want to hold up things now, but he was basically saying that they inherited a lot of debt when they took over this government in 2003. What he neglected to say is that they inherited a great deal of revenue, and that great deal of revenue came from our offshore oil investments, our offshore oil industry and also our minerals and our natural resources. That is what is making that extra cash available today to this government to be able to put out into the economy as they announced on April 26.

Now, I do give the Premier credit for the Atlantic Accord. That money came in directly because of the Premier and the commitment that Paul Martin kept, but all other revenues, which are in excess of $1 billion, came from our offshore oil industry and our natural resources.

We are all waiting for the day when the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development will stand up in this House and have a book that will be full and not blank. I kid him every time I get on my feet, that he had a strategic plan for this Province. He had twenty-five ideas, and none of them are in the working stages. He has a blank book and, lo and behold, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development could not stand the criticism and the ridicule. So, yesterday, guess what he did? He came out with his own book, a new book called: Vision, Newfoundland and Labrador. It showcased some businesses in this Province which are successful. I was glad to see that, but he is highlighting businesses in this Province that are successful and private businesses that have started on their own. Unfortunately, even with all the money that was available to the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, everything here is just a blank book, no plans in operation.

What we are here today to talk about is revision to the Public Service Pension Act. Now I am glad to approve of this and I am glad to add my approval to it, and I do not see any problem with government not being required to put in $60 million a year. You have reached a stage now, through taking out a loan and investing in the Public Service Pension Plan, that we are in a good position and it will not be necessary to make that side payment annually.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now he will close the debate on Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, in second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

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

I want to thank the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans on her comments today, which were most reasonable, but I do want to deal with a couple of points that she did, in fact, raise. She made the comment that in bringing down my first Budget I could not spend all the money. I heard the hon. member say, on many occasions in this House - I wish it were true, Mr. Speaker, I really wish it was true. I heard the hon. member say on many occasions: Well, you know, we had a $261 million surplus. We had $261 million left over and we could have done this. We had $261 million left over so we could have done that, and we could have spent extra money here. To say that we could not spend all the money, of course, is not correct, and it is important that the people of this Province realize that.

Our revenues this year will be $5.6 billion. That is the revenues that the taxpayers of this Province will receive, or the government of the people will receive. That is our personal income taxes, our sales taxes, our oil and gas revenues, our Atlantic Accord revenues, the $1.6 billion that we get from the federal government in Ottawa every year under the Equalization Program, under the Atlantic Accord program of 1985, under the Atlantic Accord program of 2005, under the Canada Social Transfer and under the Canada Health Transfer. That is $1.6 billion a year, but the other $4 billion, of course, is money that the people of this Province pay for themselves. It is called our own source revenue.

We have revenues of $5.6 billion, but we do not spend it all, Mr. Speaker. We spend $4.8 billion on programs. We spend money on programs. We spend money to run hospitals, to pay our teachers, to have police officers - these are programs. We also have to spend money to pay down the interest on our debt. Every year the first thing that the Minister of Finance, what he or she has to do, is they have to determine how much of the revenues are bringing in, how much of the money they are taking in from the people of this Province, how much of that has to go to pay interest on the debt.

When we first took over the government, the figure that the Auditor General was referring to was about $1 million a year. We had to spend $1 million a year on interest, on what is called the interest bite. When I looked at that number, and I know when other hon. members looked at that figure, obviously thought: Wouldn't it be wonderful if, instead of paying that money on interest, we could be paying that money on a good thing, that we could be paying that money to improve our health system, to build more hospitals, to build long-term care facilities, to hire more nurses, to hire more social workers, to hire more police officers, to be able to pay better Income Support, to do more?

Fortunately, because we paid down some debt, because Premier Williams managed to negotiate that wonderful agreement called the Atlantic Accord 2005 with former Prime Minister Martin, that gave the people of this Province an upfront payment of almost $2 billion, which was used to pay down our debt, pay down the unfunded liability that we talked about earlier. As a result of that, the interest that we are paying on debt this year is down to around $747 million a year, as opposed to just under $1 billion. That extra money, that $258 million is money we are going to spend on things that are important to the people of the Province. It is the money we are going to spend on programs.

So, we do have to spend a lot of money on debt servicing. It is very high what we are spending per person relative to other parts of the country, relative to other provinces, but we are getting it down. When we took over government, the Minister of Finance of the day was spending close to

twenty-five cents, just under twenty-five cents, I think twenty-three cents of every dollar was going to pay interest on the debt. Of course, fortunately, we are getting that number down. It is going to be about fourteen cents this year and it will be thirteen-point-eight cents at the end of next year. That means we are going to have more money to do the good things.

Unfortunately, I still do not have money left over. In addition to paying, out of our revenues, for government programs and paying the interest on the debt, we do have a surplus of $261 million. It is the largest surplus in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador, I am pleased to say, but we are not just leaving it there. We are taking $66 million of that surplus, or that anticipated surplus because we always have to remember that a Budget is a forecast. It is a forecast of what we think our revenues are going to be. It is a forecast of what we think we are going to spend on programming. It is a forecast of what we are going to pay on interest on our debt. With the money left over, with the surplus we are going to pay $66 million to do something that this government has been doing, we are going to pay down that debt so that there is less burden in the future on our children and on their children.

With the rest of the money - unfortunately, we are not going to keep it. We are not going to horde it. We are going to spend it on infrastructure. We are going to spend it on a $440 million infrastructure program. We are going to build roads. We are going to build $160 million worth of roads. We are going to build new buildings. We are going to build schools. We are going to build hospitals. We are going to build long-term care facilities that are going to modernize our decaying infrastructure and set the condition precedent, what is necessary for the free movement of people and goods and is a condition precedent to ensuring that we have an economy that can grow and prosper and that can be diversified for that day in the future, that unfortunate day in the future when the oil and gas revenues will no longer be there. So, we are not hoarding the money. We are spending the money and we are investing it in capital, in future capital for future generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing the hon. member mentioned, she talked about in terms of the investment in the unfunded pension liability in the pension plan. We are investing $982 million this year in the Public Service Pension Plan. We talked about, we look forward to the day when the plan would be 100 per cent sustainable. We talked about when that day was reached, when the investments would continue to grow, when revenues would be earned and when the fund was in excess of 100 per cent, that at that point we could sit down with our unions and we could talk about enhancements; we could discuss enhancements to the plan at that particular point in time.

The hon. member talked about people out there who may be aging and may not live to see the day. It is very important that I point out that in this Budget we have helped those people, because in this Budget one of the things we did is we gave the taxpayers of this Province, we gave the people if this Province, the biggest tax reductions in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador. With our fee reductions and with our ferry rate reductions and with our tax reductions of $155 million, that put $160 million back into the pockets of the people of this Province.

Someone said the other day that our Budget hit the pockets of the people of this Province. It did hit them indeed by putting money in those pockets to the tune of $160 million, and I know the people of this Province are pleased with that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: That, Mr. Speaker, puts money in the pockets of people. That enables people to pay their bills. That enables our economy to be more competitive. That enables us to attract business investment, new business because that means new jobs. That enables us to attract and retain highly skilled workers who we need here to fill the jobs of tomorrow, the new jobs that are going to be here. This is all extremely important.

We are gone from having the high tax rates in Atlantic Canada to the Province with the lowest tax rates in Atlantic Canada. Our tax rates will be lower that Nova Scotia, they will be lower than New Brunswick, they will be lower that Prince Edward Island. We will put $160 million into the pockets of people. It will help people pay their bills, it will help them spend their money the way they want to spend it, not the way government tells them. It will lower the first bracket from 10.57 per cent to 8.7 per cent.

Higher income earners will receive a tax break, a percentage tax break, to the tune of about 16 per cent as compared to last year. Lower income earners will receive a tax reduction on a percentage basis ranging from 19 per cent to 100 per cent. This government makes sure that we are getting tax breaks right across the board, to our high income earners, to our middle income workers, but most important of all to the lower income earners.

Mr. Speaker, in particular I want to point out to everyone that we have enhanced the low income tax reduction threshold. This makes 5,200 more people eligible for this reduction. This will remove 4,000 people - 4,000 low income earners will no longer have to pay any taxes whatsoever. We are going to remove 4,000 low income people from the tax rolls of this Province, and, Mr. Speaker, we are going to index that benefit so that they are protected from bracket creep and they are protected from the ravages of inflation.

Mr. Speaker, we are also going to introduce enhancements to the low income seniors' benefit. That benefit for low income seniors has been enhanced so that an additional 5,900 couples - that is about 12,000 people, 12,000 seniors - will now receive full or partial benefits. That, as well, will be indexed to protect seniors from inflation and to protect them from bracket creep.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing we are going to do for these pensioners and these people, is that we are putting $91 million into a poverty reduction strategy. This government, under Premier Williams, has made a commitment that we will go from having the highest rate of poverty in the country to the lowest rate of poverty in the country within ten years. Last year we put $61 million into the budget to do this. I am sorry, I made a mistake there. I think it was $32 million last year. That, on an annualized basis, will be $60 million this year. We are putting another $29 million in this year. That is $91 million to help low-income Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, we are doing the right thing. This government has a vision. This government's goal is to use the non-renewable resources that we have today, that we have the benefit of today, to leverage those revenues, to develop our vast inventory of our renewable resources throughout the whole Province. We are doing that strategically. We are doing it with a major tax cut to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to help them spend the money the way they see fit, which will make our economy more competitive, which will be invested and help our economy grow. It will help us attract skilled workers, attract and retain skilled workers. We will then invest strategically. We will invest over $100 million to attract business to come here, not because it is business but because we want to see jobs. We want to see jobs all over Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

We are going to invest in our natural resources. We are going to use those non-renewable resources to invest in our natural resources. We are going to invest in forestry, we are going to invest in aquaculture and agriculture, we are going to invest in small- and medium-sized businesses and, most important of all, in my view, we are going to invest in the innovation economy. We are going to invest in research and development. We are going to invest in the knowledge economy, because for many years Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have had jobs based on our resources. We have also had jobs based on the fact that different parts of the Province are government centres, different parts of the Province are regional centres, but it is time for rural Newfoundland, it is time for the rest of the Province, to also take advantage of the knowledge economy. We are going to do that through investment in the Centre of Environmental Excellence in Corner Brook, through a new fisheries and aquaculture research facility in St. Alban's, and a new centre of marine technology here in St. John's.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans that seniors in this Province, pensioners in this Province, will receive numerous benefits in this Budget, a Budget that has been applauded by many different groups and a Budget that has been referred to in the media as the most generous Budget in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 5 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 5)

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

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 5)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act. (Bill 11)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 11, An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act." (Bill 11)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 11 is fairly simple and fairly routine but, at the same time, it is an important piece of legislation. What it does, very simply and succinctly, Mr. Speaker, it provides for the Auditor General to audit the accounts of the House of Assembly, and it says that the Auditor General shall audit them annually. The Auditor General must do the audit of the House of Assembly, and he must do them on an annual basis.

This was a commitment made by the Premier when he was Leader of the Opposition. Of course, the government has moved, through the IEC, to have the Auditor General back in the House of Assembly so that the Auditor General has a legal right to audit the accounts of the House, which he is doing and has been doing; but, to make certain that there is no question about it on a go-forward basis and that the Auditor General, more importantly, will do it on an annual basis, to make certain that there is no question about that, then we want to amend the Internal Economy Commission Act to provide for the legal framework for the Auditor General to audit the accounts of the House of Assembly, and to audit them on an annual basis.

Mr. Speaker, with that brief, succinct explanation of this brief and succinct amendment, I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words on this Bill 11 alluded to by the minister.

There has been a lot of controversy, of course, in the Province about this issue, particularly from the point of view of whether the Auditor General should or should not be auditing the books of the House of Assembly. Well, it is finally nice to see the legislation actually hit the floor of the House. There has certainly been a lot of discussion of it in the last year in the media and in the public, which it should have been, and we, of course, will be supporting this piece of legislation.

Just for a little bit of history on this whole IEC piece, and some of the things that have transpired since last year - sometimes, for example, it is what you don't say that people say: Well, how come they never commented on that or how come they never talked about that. They flipped that one through the House of Assembly some fast, and they didn't want to deal with it. Well, Mr. Speaker, it needs to be dealt with and it has to be dealt with in an upfront and forthright manner.

This particular piece of legislation here today only deals with the issue of bringing in the Auditor General. Just so the people in the public understand, this IEC, when I use that term, that is just an abbreviation for the Internal Economy Commission. That is a committee, or a commission as they call it, that is chaired by the Speaker of the House of Assembly and so many people sit on it. It runs the affairs of all the MHAs, and it also runs the affairs of officers of the House. For example, we have an Ombudsman and a Child and Youth Advocate. We have the Chief Electoral Officer who comes under that. We have Hansard that records and transcribes everything that happens in this House. So, there is a whole number of groups of people who are governed by the House of Assembly.

It is actually separate from government. Some people don't understand or can't make the distinction, but what the House of Assembly does, for example, is separate from government itself, it is independent. It has a Budget because it has to pay these people and it has to pay for these things.

That Internal Economy Commission is made up of different groups of people. It is chaired by the Speaker of this House, because the Speaker is sort of the minister. If it were a department we were talking about it would be the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Finance. In this case the minister is the Speaker. There are also certain people on that committee because of the fact that they are officers of the House. For example, the Government House Leader is there because he is an officer of the House. He automatically sits on the IEC. The person who is the Opposition House Leader, and I am currently the Opposition House Leader, I sit on there as well, because the legislation says that the Opposition House Leader sits on it. There are also other members. Typically, the Minister of Finance sits on there, the reason being, of course, that you are often dealing with finance so it is nice to have people who know about finances and control of finances be available to provide you with that information and get their guidance and advise. So, the Minister of Finance is always sitting on there.

The Deputy Speaker, the person who is sitting in this chair as I am speaking here today - it happens to be the Member for Bonavista South, but he also is the Deputy Speaker of the House. You sit on that IEC because you are the Deputy Speaker, therefore you are automatically the Vice-Chair of the Internal Economy Commission.

There are also other representatives that are selected by the caucus. For example, the government gets to put a couple of extra bodies on there besides those people who are automatically on there. In the case of the Opposition, we get one extra body. The Leader of the Opposition picks out who that person is going to be and appoints them to the IEC. Currently, that happens to be Mr. Joyce who is the MHA for the District of Bay of Islands. He sits on the IEC for the Opposition Party, in addition to myself. That is who makes up the IEC, when people hear about this in the media. That is who they are. They are supposed to be responsible for the administration of everything connected to the House.

It is quite obvious, given the controversy that has unfolded in the last year or so, that the openness and the transparency of the IEC, what happened on the IEC and how it should function, has changed a lot. It changed a lot, in fact, after the government changed in October of 2003. The bodies changed, number one, because there were different personalities. There were different Government House Leaders and different Opposition House Leaders and different Speakers, and different Deputy Speakers, for example. There were different appointments made to the IEC. That was one thing that changed, the physical bodies. Who was on it changed.

Now some of them didn't. Mr. Byrne, for example, the former Member for Kilbride, he sat on there before the election of October of 2003, he sat on there in his capacity as Opposition House Leader. After the government changed and he became the Government House Leader, he sat on the IEC as the Government House Leader. In that case, the body did not change.

My first experience, personally, on the IEC was after government changed and I became Opposition House Leader and so on. Some bodies change, but not all of them. Minister Sullivan, for example, the former Minister of Finance who left government over the Christmas break of 2006, he was on it for years and years. The current Government House Leader, the Member for Lewisporte, he sits on there now in his capacity as Government House Leader, but he also sat on there in years past. Sometimes he was on there and sometimes he was not.

The Member for Topsail, who was the former Auditor General in her previous employment life before she became involved in politics, when she became the Minister of Health, she sat on the IEC. So, there has been goings and comings of memberships on the IEC since the government changed in October of 2003.

This bill today only deals with one person, one little piece of what the IEC does. It says: We will and shall bring back the Auditor General to audit the accounts of the House of Assembly. No question of will we or will we not. The word, shall, is used as mandatory, must be there, and rightfully so.

Just to go back and do a rewind on this, there was some question as to who brought this about, that the Auditor General shall come in, because this is only hitting the floor of the House today, but actually this question became active when government changed. I do not think it is the case, or ought not be a case, about who takes credit for it; bringing the Auditor General back. The government would like to take credit and say: We are open and transparent and we brought the Auditor General back. I will state right here today that I was a member of IEC from day one when this government changed and I know the chronology of it. I know who made the motions to bring the Auditor General back and I know who seconded them and I know who voted for it. I say here, without fear of contradiction, that when the government changed and it was decided and discussed in the IEC to bring the Auditor General back, it was intended at that time to be on a go-forward basis. Nobody had any thought, when the IEC brought in the Auditor General, that it would have anything to do back in 2003 or 2002 or 2001. That was never made a point of bringing the Auditor General back. Very clearly, the discussion about bringing the Auditor General back was intended to be on go-forward basis. One can question now - if we are going to be totally open and totally transparent, were we only going to be open and transparent on a go-forward basis.

Fortunately, the Auditor General did not give that read to that minute. He read the motions and the Auditor General said: That is not what I read into that. I am not reading that to be on a go-forward basis. That is going to be, I can go in and look at what I want to, and thank God he did. He started looking at certain things in 2003 and 2004 and then he went back, and the rest is history, as they say. That is the history of how the Auditor General discussion took place.

We find ourselves today, where we said we are going to make this clear and unequivocal, that he shall have access to any and all records that he wants to have access to. That is exactly what he is doing.

There are some other things that are under discussion that I am hoping will hit the floor of this House too. It will not do it now, probably because the government never had time to do it. Maybe it is not even necessary to engrave it and put it into legislation, but there have been a number of things suggested and agreed to on the IEC. For example, the Opposition brought forward the fact that all the minutes of the IEC should be transcribed, number one, and, number two, that all of the meetings should be public. That has been agreed to now by the IEC. Everybody on the IEC agreed to that. It is obvious again, because you are only ever going to have true openness and true accountability if the public can, at any time, know what you talked about, who said what. In fact, even if they cannot be present at the meeting to see what is talked about at that given meeting, at least with a transcript they can go back at any time and see who said what, the same as here in this House. There is no such thing as you get up today, you say something, and ten years time you say, I never said that. Once you say it here now in this House, the words I am speaking today, you can come back ten years out and know exactly what I said. That is going to happen on the IEC now, and it should. It was the Opposition who brought that forward.

In fact, I hope it does get put into legislation. The ultimate protection is that it should be in legislation that the meetings will be public and the meetings will be transcribed. That is hopefully going to be put in legislation.

It was also proposed by the Official Opposition that when MHAs post their constituency expenses it should be posted on-line, put on the Internet. They have a process in the federal government that ministers file their claims and it goes up on the Internet. Anybody in the world can go in and see what Minister Loyola Hearn spends on his travel and his claims. You can do that. We have not gone that far in the IEC, but those are the public pronouncements and wishes of the Opposition members of the IEC, that we should go there. We need to go there because that is another piece of being truly open and truly transparent.

The other thing that has happened on the IEC - you talk about a level of comfort - is that there have been far more people hired. The office has been totally restructured. In fact, this process started not only when the controversy started. Give credit to the Chair of the IEC, the current Speaker, and the IEC, that since the government changed everybody acknowledged that you cannot have one or two people looking after such important stuff financially. You have to put the proper checks and balances in place to run the show, and you need the bodies to do that, and that has been done. That is another good advance, another step towards openness and transparency.

The other thing is, the Opposition members of the IEC have suggested that we should table the constituency allowance expenditures right here, and the supporting documentation. If this Member for Burgeo & LaPoile puts in a claim for $1,400 for my month's expenses, you might only post it on the Internet that I spent the $1,400, but a copy of everything that I claimed should be filed in the House. If anybody wants to go back and check and see what I spent that $1,400 on, go for it.

Again, the same as we have a problem ongoing right now in this Province with levels of confidence by the public in our health care system, they need to have the same, first of all, restoration of confidence in how we, as MHAs, are spending their money, and we are only going to get there by making it fully open.

Now, there are going to be people who are going to disagree. I am sure that members are going to file a claim for something, and somebody out in the public is going to say: My God, that was wanton and that was wasteful, because they do not agree, or disagree. Well, that is fine, we can still and should be subject to that scrutiny. We will judge each book on its contents at that time. That is fair ball. People are going to talk about: Are your priorities right or wrong?

The other thing that has been suggested by the Opposition, that we need to go to, in addition to this Auditor General piece, is that we should make the House of Assembly subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Right now, in this Province, we have what you call an Access to Information Act. If you want to get a piece of information from the Department of Finance, for example, or the Premier's office, or Justice, or anybody - the Department of Fisheries and Oceans - you have a right to apply, under the Access to Information Act, and say: I would like to get such-and-such information. You pay a fee, I believe it is $5, and they go off and they tell you, here is what you can have. Now, if it costs some money to get it printed then you have to pay that too, and that is fine, but at least you have a right to get at that information.

There is no such right in this Province at the present time when it comes to the House of Assembly. You cannot file an application under the Access to Information Act at the present time and find out information about anything that is going on in the House of Assembly. We think, as an Opposition, that needs to be done as well. This here is only one, an important one, that we bring in the Auditor General - no problem, I agree with that - but we are only going to have the full, absolute restoration of confidence in the system when we take these other steps as well.

We will be speaking in favour of this particular bill. We do strongly believe, as an Opposition, that it does not go far enough, and we also have to be cognizant, and the public, I am sure, are aware of it, we will be back here in due course in this House to bring in a whole pile of new laws when it comes to the operations of this House based upon the Green commission, and I refer, of course, to Chief Justice Green who was appointed by this Administration to investigate, check into and report upon everything relating to MHAs activities, whether it be from what MHAs are paid, to what their pension plan is, to what they use their constituency allowances for, whatever rules are going to control and govern MHAs.

Chief Justice Green now has been at that for quite a while. I do believe the commission was struck back in July 2006. He anticipated he might get it done within five or six months; but, of course, it is a very detailed and it is a very complex issue. Chief Justice Green is not going to do it if he is not going to do it right, and nor should he.

Now, I understand that we can anticipate getting Chief Justice Green's report in the near future, probably as early as next week, I understand, towards the end of May month or maybe the first part of June. The public and the MHAs, and everybody who is subject to that, anxiously await it.

Now, we might not find ourselves being able to implement anything that Justice Green says or recommends between now and the election, and I think everybody knows that. I anticipate we are probably looking at a report that is in the hundreds of pages, if not in the thousands. There are going to be very complex issues so we might not, as a Legislature, get an opportunity to review, analyze, process and bring the necessary legislation back here, to be passed based on the Green report. That is coming. In fact, I am sure every member sitting here now would like to be a part of that in the future. The election will determine that, of course. Anybody who has been a part of the process, and going through the process, would like to have the benefit of seeing that it is fixed, and we have an obligation to see that it is fixed and fixed right.

Again, in conclusion, we are supportive of this piece of legislation. We want to make it clear to the public that it is not the only thing that government or the official Opposition is calling for when it comes to the IEC. This is one tinnsy-winnsy, but yet very important, piece of amendments that need to be made when it comes to the IEC and the operations of the House of Assembly.

We will, Mr. Speaker, be supportive of this piece of legislation and the sooner - we have done it, we have agreed to it as an IEC, we have agreed to it as a government, we have agreed to it as an Opposition. What we are doing here today is we are putting it into law. It needed to be done, is being done, and we will certainly be supportive of it.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I am very glad to rise today and speak in favour of this bill. Obviously, it is something that has been needed and I am delighted to see that it is now here in front of us to pass.

When the issues around the IEC first came to light last year I was not a member of the House, and, as an outsider, I have to say that I was pretty taken aback by the things that did come to light at that time. Once I became an MHA and took time to really look at the IEC and what it's role was and the fact that there was a lot about it that wasn't open, it was disconcerting. So I am very glad to know that my colleagues who are currently on the IEC had the wisdom to know that things had to change. Obviously, nobody who is elected by the people of the Province, by the people of the country, should be exempt from being transparent and being open and having everything that they do open for scrutiny. It is our responsibility to the people that we can tell them we have nothing to hide, that everything we do is there for them to see and there for them to judge. Opening ourselves to the Auditor General is one step in doing that.

I understand, from minutes that have been passed by the IEC, that the IEC has also made decisions with regard to its meetings being open. I think that is another important step towards accountability and transparency. With open meetings, we really will be putting ourselves out there for everybody, showing that there is nothing to hide.

We have a lot of credibility, as a House, that we have to gain back from people. We have to earn it. We cannot take it for granted. Even as somebody who was not in the House at the time that things happened around the IEC and members of the House, even I get questioned sometimes by people or have comments made to me which show, sometimes jokingly but sometimes half in earnest also, which are showing people questioning honesty or questioning credibility. Anything that we can do to show people we are open and we are willing to have everything that we say and do judged by them is only for the betterment of governance, and that is what we should be all about.

I am looking forward to the recommendations from Chief Justice Green and his commission. I certainly hope that the report will be in our hands soon. I, too, understand, as did my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, that the report is probably going to be in our hands by the end of this month. I welcome it. I certainly have a sense from discussions I had when I was interviewed by Chief Justice Green, and I am sure all the rest of us, that he is going to leave no stone unturned and that I think the level of detail - we should expect a very high level of detail from him. The more detail the better, I would say, because the more that we can leave unquestioned, the more that we can have everything nailed down, every move nailed down, the more credible we are going to be with the people in the Province. I welcome the detail that I am expecting from Chief Justice Green.

One thing that I have said publicly, and I have said it to Chief Justice Green when I met with him, I really believe that all parties who are in the House should be on the IEC because of the nature of its work. I am certainly hoping that when Chief Justice Green's report comes out, that he will be recommending that any party sitting in the House would be represented on the IEC. If that were the case, it would mean that my own party would be represented. I certainly have an expectation, or hope, that would be the case, that would be a recommendation. I will be hoping that the members of the House, members of the government, the members of the Official Opposition would also see the benefit of having all parties who are sitting in the House represented on the IEC. That would be my expectation.

Of course, by the time all of this gets put in place, we probably will have had a general election and there may be some different configurations here in the House when all of this happens, but I would hope that we would all be on one word about it. I am sure - well, I will not say I am sure. There is the possibility that there might be some recommendations that not everybody will agree with. I hope there will not be too many. I hope that we are all going to be so united on trying to have an open and transparent process that when the recommendations come, none of us will be afraid to say yes to the recommendations, because it will be coming from somebody who has a lot of wisdom, coming from somebody who will have listened to an awful lot of people before he has put the recommendations together. I think it is going to be incumbent on us to be open to those recommendations because they are going to be there for the good of the Province and they are going to be there for our own good as well, maybe for our own protection, because it is easy to get caught up in stuff and to lose a sense of who you are in committees that are private committees. So, I am looking forward to the fact that private committees will end, that we will all be there to be judged, we will all be there to be praised, that everything we do that people see is their business. That is what it is all about.

I have to say, when I learned that the House had deliberately said, no, to the Auditor General doing the books of the House and auditing the books of the House, I was disturbed. I actually asked my predecessor, because my predecessor voted for the outside agency to do the auditing. I questioned him on his reasoning, and he explained his reasoning to me. I said: Well, I can sort of understand it, but at the same time I felt a mistake had been made. I think it is really good that the current members of the IEC had the wisdom to recognize that we needed to put this in legislation, that it needed to be spelled out, and that when they brought it to Cabinet and now to the House, that we are all in unison on this happening.

I will not belabour the point, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I usually do not do that. I am fairly succinct. Some say I am too succinct, but I think I have made the points that I want to make, and I thank the House for the time for making those points. I think we should be proud of ourselves that we are putting this in the legislation with regards to the Internal Economy Commission Act. I hope that once the time comes for us to discuss the recommendations from Chief Justice Green's Commission, that we will be as forthright then and as open then so that I can stand after that discussion and say I am really proud of the work we have done when we put all the other things that are going to have to go into the act.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Government House Leader speaks now he will close the debate on second reading of Bill 11, An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues, the Opposition House Leader and the Leader of the NDP for their contribution to the debate on Bill 11, An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act. The words expressing the views on behalf of their parties is certainly shared by those of us on the government side.

This amendment, ensuring the return of the Auditor General to audit the IEC, the books of the House of Assembly, is just that, a good first step. It is not the only step, Mr. Speaker, there will be other steps that will need to be taken but it was a commitment that was made by the leader of this party when we were in Opposition. It has been concurred in by the present configuration of the IEC and now I would expect perhaps it will be concurred in unanimously by this House, that it be made the law of the land and hopefully never more to be changed.

We can go back in history and talk about it being changed and why it was changed and it was agreed by all parties for any number of reasons, including the acknowledgment by the Leader of the NDP that her predecessor, and others, agreed to it at the time. Right reasons or wrong reasons, history shows us that it was not the right thing to do. So, therefore, if we are not to be judged by history, we should take our lessons from history and make the changes that are necessary so that this does not happen again. There are many, many other changes I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that will come over time, whether they will come in time to be in place legislatively, if that is required, before the general election in October as a result of the Green Commission, we do not know. The Green Commission is not yet in our hands. We anticipate it, and anticipate it with enthusiasm, so that we can get on with putting in place whatever the reforms are that will be recommended by Chief Justice Green.

In terms of third party representation on the IEC, look, we do not have any difficulty with that. Party representation in this House is something that has to be recognized and defined in the rules of the House. There is not a jurisdiction, as far as I know, in Canada that recognizes a party of one, but then you have to get to two, or three, or whatever the magic number is, or a percentage of candidates who run in the last election, or a percentage of vote in the previous election. There are all kinds of ways, innovative ways, of making sure that the will of the people, which is what it boils down to, the will of the people, is reflected on committees of this House and in the workings of this House and in the openness and accountability of this House, because that is what it is at the end of the day. All of us want that, despite the impression that may be in the minds of those who think that there is a little monster's head under every brick in this building, or in the basement of this building. All of us want to be open and accountable to our constituents.

I have managed to survive thirty-something years in this place, in public life in this Province, and, knock on wood, thank God, there has not been an iota of a smell. I hope that when I walk out of here, and I know that every member here hopes the same thing, that when we can walk out of here there is not the iota of a smell left behind us. Having said that, let none of us be beyond the veil to think that we are perfect. We are not. Any of us can make mistakes, they can be honest mistakes, and when they come to the light of public scrutiny we could be criticized for them, but I am prepared to take that.

I was in Lewisporte last week and I made a $5,000 donation from my constituency allowance to a charitable organization in Lewisporte. I told everybody there, it was their money and I was happy to make the contribution, on their behalf, to the mentally handicapped association called Calypso in Lewisporte. If any of them had trouble with me doing that, as long as I had the right legally to do it, then they could vote against me in the next election. I do not think anybody there had any problem with the taxpayers' money being used for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I say to members: Don't be apologetic about doing what you think is right. Go out and take it on the chin and defend it, because the people think it is right and the people acknowledge that it is right, but they are not going to acknowledge if we are going around apologizing for it, or thinking that you are doing it up in the corner behind - we used to have curtains in this House at one time when we were up on the ninth floor - the curtains.

Well, that is not the way it is. There is a set of rules, there are laws, and we abide by them. If somebody is judged, at the end of the process, to have flaunted those, they will pay for it. If some of us are judged to have made mistakes, we will pay the price and we have to answer, and so should we, and at the end of the day it will be the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who will have the final say, and they will have it as they should, Mr. Speaker, in a democracy, and that is in the ballot box and not at the tip of a gun.

I am pleased, therefore, to move second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act." (Bill 11)

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

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 11)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain bills.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

CHAIR (Collins): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to move to Committee of the Whole on Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991.

CHAIR: Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991." (Bill 5)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill passed without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, Committee of the Whole on Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code.

CHAIR: Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code." (Bill 8)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 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'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill passed without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to be saying, at the end of carried, when shall the bill be read a third time? In both of those cases I will indicate to the House that the answer to that question is presently, by leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: In that case (inaudible) Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 11. I believe it is An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act.

CHAIR: Bill 11, An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act." (Bill 11)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill passed without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The bill is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997.

CHAIR: Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997." (Bill 15)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 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'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill passed without amendments?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991.

CHAIR: Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991." (Bill 16)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 16 inclusive.

CHAIR: Clauses 2 to 16 inclusive, shall these carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 16 inclusive carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: It has been moved by the Government House Leader 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.

MR. PARSONS: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: A point of order, the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Just to make a point, I do not anticipate that the Government House Leader would have any difficulty. I happened to be out of the Chamber for a moment when we went through the Committee stage, but I had, during the discussion and the second reading on the Human Rights Bill, Bill 8, posed some questions to the Minister of Justice and he was going to report back during Committee stage and I happened to be gone when this was called. We are passed that now. Anyway, I guess I can still have an opportunity maybe in third reading for him to convey that information back. I just want to make a point that we did not get it yet.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, no problem. I concur with what the Opposition House Leader had to say, and hopefully, we will find the minister and we will have the information on third reading.

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 Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to it referred and have directed me to report Bills 5, 8, 15, 11 and 16 passed without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

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

When shall this report be received?

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Presently, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently, by leave.

Has leave been granted to proceed to third readings? The Chair acknowledges that leave has been granted.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move third reading of Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, 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 Public Service Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 5)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, 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 Public Service Pensions Act, 1991," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 5)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now move third reading of Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code. I do believe that Minister of Justice had some information for the benefit of the Opposition House Leader on this bill.

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

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

In response to a couple of questions raised by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, consultations were done with Finance, the Public Service Secretariat, the Human Rights Commission, based on some concerns that the Human Rights Commission had raised, as well as Government Services.

In regards to the Charter challenge, the Human Rights Commission had raised concerns that it could be challenged, or at least problems with that part of the act. There were consultations and a review of legislation in other jurisdictions, as well as a review of case law. As a result of those reviews, the department had a look at the particular wording of the act, made the determination that it may not stand up to a Charter challenge, and that is the reason for the change on the amendments to the act.

MR. SPEAKER: Further debate?

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 8, An Act To Amend 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 Human Rights Code. (Bill 8)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code, has now been read a third time and it ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

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

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to move third reading of Bill 11, An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 11, An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 11 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 Internal Economy Commission Act. (Bill 11)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 11, An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act, has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 11)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move third reading of Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 15 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 Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 15)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 15 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 Pension Benefits Act, 1997," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 15)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move third reading of Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991, be now read a third time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 16)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 16)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the House, particularly the Opposition, for their co-operation in moving through a few pieces of uncontentious legislation this afternoon. Since it is getting near the normal adjournment time and members would want to leave to go home for the weekend to their constituencies or their families or whatever, those who have made those arrangements can leave a little early.

I just want to say to my colleagues, before we adjourn, that the plan on Monday, as I discussed with the Opposition, is to do some further legislation, and then if we finish the legislation, we will proceed with the Budget Debate again after that.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I wish members a pleasant weekend and I move that the House on its rising do adjourn until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 of the clock.

MR. SPEAKER: Before the Chair puts the motion, the Chair would like to advise the House that due to the fact that several bills, which passed third reading this afternoon, are time sensitive in terms of their effectiveness, the Chair will be presenting these bills to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor on tomorrow so they can have Royal Assent. That has been arranged with His Honour. As of tomorrow, these bills that were passed this afternoon will receive Royal Assent.

With that said, the motion is that we adjourn until Monday, May 28, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

All those in favour, aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

This House now stands adjourned.

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