MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

I do believe that by arrangements with the groups in the House that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General wishes to make a statement at this time.

The hon. the Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, today with the concurrence of the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I will move, with leave in a few minutes, that Mr. Phil Wall be appointed as the Information and Privacy Commissioner effective on today's date.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the notice with respect to the appointment and fully concur, glad to see the appointment made.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have been made aware of the choice of the government in this regard, and concur in the resolution about to be made by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General with respect to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

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

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

It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise in my place today and not to have to tell hon. members to stay tuned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Rather, Mr. Speaker, I am able to rise today to, as it were, sing a different tune, a sweeter tune, a tune about this government's theme for this session, of openness, transparency and accountability in government.

It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that I am pleased to take such pleasure today in being able to make brief remarks on the appointment of Mr. Phil Wall as the new Information and Privacy Commissioner, and on the proclamation into force of the new Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Mr. Speaker, Phil Wall is well known to many members of this hon. House as a dedicated, conscientious and long-time civil servant. From the commencement of his career in 1969 through to his retirement in 2003 he has served under many administrations in a number of senior capacities. His expertise from an administrative and policy perspective, as well as his experience from a hands-on, practical, commonsense perspective, will serve the people of this Province well as we embark on this new path, and this new era of accountability and transparency, ushered in by this new legislation on access and privacy.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner will be responsible for educating the public about their rights under this new legislation. He will provide an independent review mechanism for the citizens of the Province, and will ensure that the legislation is upheld across the broad spectrum of government. Remember, too, Mr. Speaker, that over 460 public bodies will be subject to this act, including all government departments and agencies, school boards, public, post-secondary institutions, health boards and municipalities.

The task, Mr. Speaker, is huge, and the Office of the Commissioner, which is totally independent of government and answerable directly to this House of Assembly, is crucial to its success and to the openness and accountability that are the hallmarks of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the proclamation signed by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor this morning provides for the immediate proclamation of section 42.1 of the act and for the coming into force of the remainder of the act, except for Part 4 dealing with privacy, on Monday, January 17, 2005. The intention, Mr. Speaker, is to give the Commissioner one month to attend to the set-up of his office and on the selection and appointment of staff prior to receipt of requests under the legislation.

Part 4 of the act dealing with privacy will be delayed, as was originally intended, and as has been the plan from the outset, for one year to allow all bodies covered by the act to educate and equip themselves to adequately implement the privacy protection provisions of the act.

Members will be pleased to know that the Access and Privacy Office within the Department of Justice has already started this process and will continue to develop policies, provide training and assist public bodies with respect to privacy over the coming months. The access to information provisions, however, will be effective commencing January, 17, 2005.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity also to thank Mr. Wayne Mitchell, Mr. Wall's predecessor in office, for undertaking the preparatory work to establish this new office and to provide for the transition from freedom of information to the new ATIPPA legislation. His tenure played an important part in helping to identify the resource base necessary to implement the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner so as to ensure that the most efficient administrative structure to give effect to this new legislation was put in place. Mr. Wall and his staff will have a head start based upon the preparatory work completed by Mr. Mitchell.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the resources committed to the Office of the Commissioner by this House are now adequate to accomplish the legislation's objectives. Mr. Wall will be assisted in his work by an Executive Director, an Investigator, and an Executive Secretary-Receptionist who collectively, under the Commissioner's leadership, will run the office on a day to day basis. This professional staff should be adequate to respond efficiently to inquiries and requests for information and to investigate complaints appropriately and promptly in accordance with the provisions of the act.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the budget for the office now allows for additional funds in the professional services account. This will provide flexibility to hire additional staff on an as-needed basis. This will be especially advantageous in light of the potential for any surge of activity in the first few months of the act's operation. It is not, of course, possible to predict with certainty the demand on the office, but this flexibility will allow the Commissioner and the Executive Director to adjust the workload as it unfolds.

Mr. Speaker, an open and transparent government is fundamental to the operation of democratic institutions. The Province's existing Freedom of Information Act was adopted in 1981. It was a modern piece of legislation in its time. Indeed, in 1981 only New Brunswick and Nova Scotia had legislated in this area. After more than twenty years however, the time for a complete overhaul has come. In appointing Mr. Wall today as our new Information and Privacy Commissioner and setting a date for the coming into force of the new Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act we have entered a new era. Moreover, we have demonstrated our commitment to the citizens of this Province to openness, accountability, transparency in government.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate all the members of this hon. House for their review of the new act and for their constructive and co-operative participation in its proclamation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave at this point to move the following resolution, that under section 42.1 of the Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act, Mr. Phil Wall be appointed as the Information and Privacy Commissioner effective on today's date.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is of the understanding that leave has been granted to introduce said resolution.

The hon. the minister has moved that under section 42.1 of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Mr. Phil Wall be appointed as the Information Privacy Commissioner effective on today's date.

All those in agreement, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, say ‘nay'

The motion is carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: a statement by the Member for the District of Exploits and Leader of the Opposition; a statement by the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre; a statement by the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

The hon. the Member for Exploits, and Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize two incredibly talented individuals from the Exploits Valley who have recently been recognized by the Music Industry Association of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cory Tetford and Mr. Barry Canning were both honoured with awards at the Music Industry Association's annual award show held recently here in St. John's.

Cory Tetford, a native of Grand Falls-Windsor, comprises one-half of the tremendously popular band Crush. This year, Crush was the recipient of the Music Industry Association Award for Pop/Rock Group of the Year.

Mr. Speaker, this award is a tremendous achievement for Cory, and for the band. This year's East Coast Music Award is continued proof that Crush is climbing in popularity and will be a continued success into the future.

Also winning at this year's ceremony was Bishop's Falls native Barry Canning. Of the five categories that Mr. Canning was nominated in, he won three awards, taking home the SOCAN Songwriter of the Year for his collaboration with Great Big Sea's Alan Doyle on the song Last Man Standing; Album of the Year for Last Man Standing, and the award for Male Artist of the Year.

I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that Barry Canning may have spent some time writing songs when I was supposedly teaching him physics in high school in Bishop's Falls.

Mr. Canning hopes that his success at this year's awards ceremony will help give him more leverage as he continues plotting his career in the industry.

I ask all hon. members, Mr. Speaker, to join me in congratulating two outstanding talented Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the unsung angels of the Christmas season. These angels are the people who are out in each and every community in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, who give their time and resources to help those who are less fortunate than themselves.

They are the people who visit the shut in and sick over the Christmas season. They are the people who bring a hot meal or a small gift to a lonely neighbour. They are the people who provide a food hamper to a family with no food. They are the people who give gifts to a family who cannot provide for their own, and they are the people who clear the snow off the walkway of their neighbours. These are the angels of Christmas who make this time of the year a special time and a better time for those in need.

As we reflect during the holiday season, Mr. Speaker, I ask each of us to remember these angels and give thanks that we have such special people in all of our communities. We should also reflect on those in need and our role as Legislators in being able to help the needy live a safe and meaningful life with dignity.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to honour Nellie Strowbridge, a very talented writer originally from the District of Port de Grave, who has recently released her second book entitled Far from Home - Dr. Grenfell's Little Orphan.

Mr. Speaker, this book is based on true events that was inspired by a young girl named Clarissa Dicks in the time frame of the early nineteen hundreds. Although the story begins in St. Anthony in 1924, Ms Strowbridge tackles childhood dilemmas that are universal and timeless.

Throughout the story Nellie says she attempted to show how a child, with a disability that sets her apart from other children, feels when penalized rather than accommodated.

The Atlantic Publishers Association referred to Nellie as one of Newfoundland and Labrador's most beloved and prolific writers, and I agree with them 100 per cent. She has won numerous provincial and national awards and has been published nationally and internationally.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in extending congratulations to Nellie Strowbridge, originally from the Town of Port de Grave, on the release of yet another successful book.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Fabian O'Dea, former Lieutenant-Governor for our Province, a proud Newfoundlander and Labradorian, and a true gentleman. Mr. O'Dea passed away on Sunday at the age of eighty-six.

Mr. Speaker, the life of Mr. O'Dea is one of remarkable accomplishment and dedication to our Province.

Mr. O'Dea received the Rhode Scholarship for our Province in 1939. However, he did not begin his studies until 1945, as he decided to serve his country during the Second World War. During his time of service he became a Lieutenant-Commander of the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Service.

After his studies and upon return to our Province in 1949, he established his law firm, O'Dea and Greene, and quickly built a respected and successful practice.

Mr. Speaker, 1963 was a special year for Mr. O'Dea as he was appointed both Queen's Counsel and Lieutenant-Governor, a post he held for six years. However, the end of his term as Lieutenant-Governor did not signal the end of Mr. O'Dea's public service to the people of our Province. He forever remained a pillar of the community through his involvement in many organizations such as the Royal Newfoundland Regiment.

Mr. O'Dea was indeed a great Newfoundlander and Labradorian, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude and appreciation, for his considerable and valued contributions to our Province.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, I wish to express our condolences to the family and friends of the hon. Fabian O'Dea and I ask all members of the House to join with me in honouring his memory today. He was truly a scholar and a gentleman.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I count it a privilege today actually to join with the Premier in paying tribute to Mr. O'Dea. I was one of the people who was privileged enough to have met him personally on a number of occasions and had some dealings with him. He is a Newfoundlander and Labradorian of the type of stature that should be recognized by a statement from the Premier on behalf of the government and all of us in this Legislature. I fully concur, Mr. Speaker, and I want to ask you, on behalf of all members in the Legislature, to send our condolences along to the family as well on the passing of a truly great Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is entirely appropriate the Premier made the statement today about this distinguished Newfoundlander, Mr. Fabian O'Dea, who passed away yesterday. He indeed made a significant contribution to the Province and was very well-known, well respected and well liked by many. I personally knew him, as well as the Premier. He was always a very congenial person who loved this Province and served it well, and deserves to be recognized in this way.

I would like to join with the others, in asking that all of our condolences be sent to the family of the late Fabian O'Dea, in honour of his memory.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my hon. colleagues and the residents of the Province that applications are now available for the Premier's Athletic Awards.

Mr. Speaker, this new program will build on the original concept of the former Athletic Assistance Program but will also work to increase the profile of the program. I am pleased to inform hon. members also that there will be an increase of $25,000 to this program, bringing the total to $75,000.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier's Athletic Awards is designed to assist the Province's athletes by providing financial assistance to allow them to compete at the national and international levels. We recognize that competing at this level is quite costly, particularly travel costs associated with participation in various sporting events. This program will provide qualifying athletes with additional financial assistance to help offset training costs, ensuring that they are provided an opportunity to further develop their skills.

The Premier's Athletic Awards Program is open to all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador who are registered with a Provincial Sport Organization recognized by my department. Eligible athletes must compete for Newfoundland and Labrador at the Canada Games and other national and regional competitions. Athletes must also be attending an educational institution on a full-time basis. Mr. Speaker, further information about the program can be obtained through Provincial Sport Organizations or through my department's website.

Mr. Speaker, a newly established Awards Selection Committee will review all applications and rate their level of priority for assistance. The committee consists of individuals with extensive knowledge of athletes in the Province. Members include: Michelle Healey from Memorial University; Todd Martin with Sport Newfoundland and Labrador; Karen Richard, School Sport Newfoundland and Labrador; and Mr. Jimmy Tee with the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that these key stakeholders in the sports community have agreed to dedicate their time and experience to reviewing the applications for the Premier's Athletic Awards. Recipients of the awards will be announced in March 2005.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy.

Before I get into the merits of the program itself, I just find it a bit ironic that this has changed to the Premier's Award. I remember a year back I helped get some funding for the Special Olympics in Corner Brook and I was criticized for trying to buy votes. I guess times do change. Every time I see the amount, $25,000, it reminds me of the cost to raise the roof of the North Shore school in the Bay of Islands that was refused by the former minister.

The program itself is a good program. It recognizes the athletes who excel in Newfoundland and Labrador. I have known athletes who have received the funding over the years, and I guess if we have to put the Premier's name to it to get another $25,000 then I would say, put his name to it twice next year so we will get more money for the athletes; because, as a former athlete, the minister knows the commitment and the sacrifice that these athletes make to represent Newfoundland and Labrador. This is a recognition for them, and I say congratulations to the athletes -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. JOYCE: To the volunteers who are going to select the board, I say, thank you for your time and energy. To all the recipients, I say, represent Newfoundland and Labrador well, as I know you will.

Thank you.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. I would like to point out for the minister, in the last sentence, the awards will be announced in March 2005, not 2004.

This is a good program, I say to the minister. It will assist athletes from our Province to compete on a national level, and give them the financial means to be able to do so, and that is a positive thing, Mr. Speaker. I would also like to point out to the minister that there needs to be much more funding in the area of sports in the Province. I know in Labrador, with the athletic federation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For some of these statements, I only have time to stand up and sit down.

I would like to say that more funding is needed from the minister's department to help the high school federation in our Province, and other sports groups, so that they can take part in provincial tournaments among each other as well as national and international meets.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before we begin Oral Questions today, I am sure all members of the House would like to welcome Mr. Scott Simms, the MP for Bonavista-Gander-Grand Falls-Windsor, who is seated in the upper gallery. I do believe it is his first visit to the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in their election blueprint, the current Conservative government promised to limit political contributions by individuals, companies and unions in any one calendar year. They also promised, Mr. Speaker, new rules would be legislated for contributions, and spending limits for advertising and for nominations.

Mr. Speaker, other amendments to the Elections Act have already been tabled and are being debated in this House, but these issues which were committed to in the Blue Book are not addressed.

I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: When does government plan to address these other promises with respect to elections in the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question the same way I did when we were debating the legislation several nights ago. The legislation that is currently before the House deals with fixed terms. It deals with ensuring that representation, if a by-election occurs, happens in a timely manner so no constituency would go without a representative in the House. Thirdly, the current legislation that is before the House deals with, if a Premier resigns or retires, whomever becomes the next Premier, that person must go to the polls within a year.

With respect to the question the Leader of the Opposition asked, I informed the Leader of the Opposition several nights ago that, before our term is up, those other commitments that we made in the Blue Book, along with ones that we are moving forward with now, will be honoured and will be met. I do not think we can be any clearer or straightforward than that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the Premier being so forthcoming in his answer, since it was his commitment.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask this question of the Premier: Could he please provide an update on the activities of the Electoral Boundaries Commission which, by law, is to review the makeup of this Legislature every ten years?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The Electoral Boundaries Commission was appointed late in 2003, and the legislative provisions provide that the Commission must complete its work before the end of the year. The Commission did not have the opportunity to complete its work before the end of the year. The Commission is therefore functus. The government has given consideration to the position of the Commission and the government has decided that it will defer the matter until 2006 and have a new Commission appointed at that time in order to carry out the functions under the act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I am glad to have the answer from the Minister of Justice. The current Electoral Boundaries Commission, as he pointed out, required by law, was appointed on August 29, 2003. Their final report was due in July past, almost six months ago, and should have been tabled in the Legislature by now.

I would ask: On what authority does the government and the Minister of Justice take it upon itself to violate the current law and decide not to do anything about it until some time in 2006? What authority, in law, does the government have for that decision that the minister just put forward?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The authority is the Electoral Boundaries Act itself. The act placed a requirement on the commission to complete its report by the end of the year in which it was appointed. The Boundaries Commission did not do that. The Boundaries Commission did not complete its work. There is no report; there is no report for me to table in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask this question of the Premier. We have been told as our understanding that the commission, which was appointed in August 2003, was told to cease and desist any further activity directly from the Premier's office and, therefore, they could not report.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Is this an attempt and was this an attempt by the Premier himself and the government to manipulate the process to achieve some desired outcome that they have planned for the future?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, again, I will repeat, the power of the commission ended by the legislation. There was no directorate from the Premier's office, there was no directorate from the Minister of Justice to the commission. The commission's power came to an end on December 31, 2003.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A different question, Mr. Speaker, for the Premier. The Premier has said -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: It is not much point in pursuing that issue because we are not going to get any answers, as usual.

The Premier has said that the civil service needed to the trimmed by 25 per cent. He has also bragged about reducing the Cabinet by 25 per cent. He has also stated publicly that the number of members in this Legislature needs to be reduced. I ask the Premier: Has he told his Cabinet and his caucus that he plans a 25 per cent reduction in the size of this Legislature?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Leader of the Opposition knows, we have already reduced the Cabinet from the oversized fattened Cabinet, the Cabinet that he had while he was in office. We have been very responsible in trying to trim our expenses, which we have done - which was not done easy. We have very competent individuals on this side of the House. It is not easy to reduce a Cabinet when you have the caliber of members that we do have on our side of the House. However, it had to be done and it had to be done for the good of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have also indicated that, where possible through attrition, we would reduce the size of the public service because of the very serious fiscal situation that we have inherited from hon. members opposite; particularly, the Leader of the Opposition when he was Premier of the Province. So, with regard to dealing with it, we are dealing with it to the best of our ability. We are trying to clean up your mess, I keep repeating it. I feel quite proud in saying that we are doing a very, very good job of dealing with it. It has not been easy. We have acted very, very responsibly and we will continue to do what is in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the speech about a completely different and non-related topic. Let me ask the question again. Has the Premier yet told his Cabinet and caucus about his plans to have the Legislature reduced by 25 per cent?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, there are no plans whatsoever to reduce the seats in this House by 25 per cent, so there is no reason why I would tell them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has spoken publicly about having a smaller Legislature, so maybe at some point in time, in the spirit of openness, accountability and transparency, he might tell his own Cabinet and caucus and then the people of the Province how big a Legislature we might have in the next election in 2007.

One final question, Mr. Speaker. It is clear that rural Newfoundland and Labrador is reeling from the indecision, inaction and complete lack of commitment to those parts of the Province, as we see with issues like FPI. When the Legislature becomes smaller, as the Premier has said it surely will, than what provisions does he plan to put in place to make sure that there is adequate representation in this Chamber for the rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can unequivocally guarantee the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador that they will be more than adequately represented in this House at all times.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: What concerns me is that the hon. member opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, continues to fearmonger. He started off in his line of questioning talking about a 25 per cent cut in the number of seats in this House. Now, there is nothing further from the truth. That seems to be the tactic of this particular gentleman and the members of the Opposition by fabricating things that are very borderline. They create them in their own minds, they come out and lay them out, and then they hope that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador adopt these as being truths. The problem is that the credibility of this person has gone down to zero, Mr. Speaker. Nobody listens to what he says anymore and there is a good reason, because he should not be listened to anymore because his credibility is gone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to come back to the commitment to the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Absolutely no doubt, we will certainly not be balancing things in favour of St. John's because we have said - and I have said it time and time again - that our focus and our interest is beyond the overpass and that will continue to be the way we will perform.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Mr. Speaker, the federal Minister of Fisheries is currently in our Province as we speak. I ask the minister, our minister, if he has used this opportunity to seek a quota for the Harbour Breton plant.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did have a brief discussion with the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans earlier today. Part of that discussion was around the situation on the South Coast as it relates to our groundfish operations. We did have a very brief discussion about quotas. I did impress upon him that I did not think it was the time to prejudge what should happen down there. I know that he has made some comments. I suggested to him that we should allow the process that we are engaged in to unfold and if, at the end of the day, there was a requirement for quotas to be associated with Harbour Breton, I hope that he would keep an open mind, as we will, and do the right thing for the people on the South Coast.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take it the answer is no, and you even went so far as to suggest that this would not be the time to give a quota to Harbour Breton. I find that very, very surprising.

Mr. Speaker, our minister has already given us his view of the need to reduce the number of fish plants in our Province. I ask the minister: Will he now tell us what he has recommended to the federal minister with regard to crab quotas for the upcoming season, especially in areas 2J and 3K?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Here he goes again, fabricating statements. The bottom line - I just said what I just said. What I said to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans today was, before he goes ruling out options, before he goes making decisions or making comments on what should or should not happen as it relates to quotas on the South Coast, that he should keep his powder dry, as everybody should keep their powder dry, and see what the process unfolds, see what comes out of the process at the end of the day. Then, once the people have determined what the options are and what is the best option for the people of Harbour Breton, for example, I hope he will keep and open mind, as will we, and we will support the people in whatever is right and proper to be done on the South Coast of the Province.

As for the question that he just asked - so that was to clarify the first one, which he obviously did not hear. I hope he hears this one. As for the situation with crab, my statement to the federal minister on crab has been consistent right on through. Whatever the advice, at the end of the day, whatever is determined to be in the best interests of the crab stocks of Newfoundland and Labrador, that is what the minister must do. In order to ensure that we have a crab industry in the long term, he must take the right action in the short term.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Tory Blue Book stated, and I will read it, "A Progressive Conservative government will carry out nation-wide public information campaigns aimed at persuading Ottawa to take custodial management over the Nose and the Tail of the Grand Banks...". This is another promise that this party has broken.

I ask the minister: Does he believe that the three-person committee that Minister Regan established this morning will do anything to stop foreign overfishing or establish custodial management, or is this just another attempt to silence Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on this issue?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, over the past twelve months, between myself and the Premier and other members of government, we have made numerous, numerous, interventions at the national level and the international level on issues relating to foreign overfishing. I cannot count how many right now, not off the top of my head, but there have been numerous interviews done by myself, opinion editorial pieces that have been carried in The National Post, The Globe and Mail, Montreal's The Gazette, et cetera, on the issue of foreign overfishing.

As for what is happening with foreign overfishing, Mr. Speaker, we have seen some improvements in the situation outside the 200-mile limit this year, in large part as a result of the interventions made by myself and by the Premier to the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Prime Minister. We have seen some stepped-up surveillance. Is it fixing the problem? No, it is not. We are a long ways from a solution outside, but we do take some comfort in the fact that there are increased patrols outside the 200-mile limit today and that there is an ongoing process to try and deal with it, much more than we saw when the former members were in government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I asked the Acting Minister of Transportation and Works, on Thursday, and he had no idea on the issue, so I ask the minister: You, yourself, stated that one-third of your trucks will not be using wing blades on their trucks. The Department of Transportation and Works, due to weight constraints, does not salt and sand our roads while using the wing blade to clear the snow back off the highways.

There is a directive from the department not to make a second run, due to financial restraints, to either salt and sand the roads or plow the snow with the wing blade. Does the minister realize the potential of this Russian roulette? Will the minister immediately order this practice to stop and make our roads safe and free?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: What the minister realizes, Mr. Speaker, is this: that the hon. gentleman, in his capacity as a researcher, has flunked again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: He has flunked again. He has it all wrong, Mr. Speaker. He does not know what he is talking about. The plows on the West Coast of this Province had the wing put back on them on Friday. He ought to know that, Mr. Speaker. Go out and hire yourself a new research assistant.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: I say to the minister, it is time for you to take your head out of the sand and see what is going on in Western Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I ask the minister: If you do not believe me, call any mayor in the Bay of Islands. Call your own staff, who were complaining last Thursday with the snowfalls. If you want, call any school bus driver who had to drop the kids off in snowbanks along the side the road. Do not believe me! The government has always put budgets before service, and this is another example of putting money before safety.

Will the minister order the roads to be properly plowed to prevent injury to our citizens, and not wait until we have a major issue, before someone gets injured in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might not have his head in the sand but he certainly has it up to his neck in a snowbank.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, there was no such directive that went out telling people that they could not make a second pass because of fiscal matters. As a matter of fact, we have said that we will put people on overtime if we have to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: The hon. member's information is wrong. Rather than admit he is wrong, Mr. Speaker, he continues to dig the hole even deeper.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that our complaints were raised and the directive was given out Friday, because I asked the questions on Thursday, when there was no answer, and they were not allowed to do it. I say to the minister, you should have been here and you would have known it.

Mr. Speaker, it has always been the practice that maintenance supervisors do an assessment of the road conditions to the determine the need for salt and snow clearing. This year people are saying they often see the ambulances and tow trucks before the see any snow equipment. Will the minister reintroduce the policy of having the supervisor determine the scope of the work, not an accountant in St. John's who is worried about dollars and cents?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies for being absent from this House on Thursday to go to the Aboriginal community of Conne River and announce that we are going to begin self-government talks with the Mi'kmaq Nation of this Province. I make no apology for that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, those management decisions are made in the region. They are not made here in St. John's. They can hire overtime at their discretion, when they want to.

The member does not know what he is talking about, Mr. Speaker. He is out to lunch, as usual.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's generating station at Holyrood is in the news, being named number five in the top ten polluters in Canada in its release of particulate matter into the atmosphere causing environmental and health concerns and having the most potential for causing lung and heart disease. Also elevated asthma and rare cancer rates are the concern of area residents who believe that Hydro's monitoring system is insufficient, with only five stations within a few kilometres of the plant, and that the current emissions and health risk assessment being conducted by Cantox is inadequate.

Why will the minister not order that scrubbers be installed by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro on all of its generating units, since he knows that will reduce pollutants and increase air and health quality?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the member for his question, because this is an important issue.

Mr. Speaker, with the new air pollution control regulations that I announced in May of this year, that will reduce the amount of sulphur in the fuel that Newfoundland Hydro burns, and, in fact, all industries throughout the Province. It will also reduce the particulate matter coming from Holyrood. In fact, this year, Mr. Speaker, the amount of particulate matter at Holyrood is about 30 per cent of what it was in 2002.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, both the current member for CBS and the previous member, the late Bob French, were very unhappy with the generating station and the pollutants, and also the current member is unhappy with the measures being taken by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Will the minister not order an independent air and health study that includes the entire fallout area from the hydro station, not just the few kilometres now being monitored? Will he ask that the study be expanded to include the whole fallout area, and will he have it done independently either by his own department or by someone independent of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and again I thank the member for his question, another good question.

Mr. Speaker, as part of the air pollution control rights that were announced in May of this year, Newfoundland Hydro in 2005 will have to provide to my department a plan outlining how they plan to reduce sulphur, how they plan to reduce particulate matter. As I have already mentioned, the particulate matter at Holyrood has been reduced to 30 per cent this year from what it was in 2002.

As well, Mr. Speaker, I have consulted with the Member for Conception Bay South about the new air pollution control rights. I am looking forward to the plan that Newfoundland Hydro is going to submit to my department. We will very carefully scrutinize that, Mr. Speaker, and we will ensure that they meet the new air pollution control rights.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows that the amount of pollution varies because of the use in different years of water-generated and hydro-generated power and what is done in Holyrood. We are expecting another drought year this year and there is going to be more pollution. Will the minister not have this independent monitoring study so that we can study the effects, the health effects of what has been happening in Holyrood for the last number of years?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. It is good to see a member with sincere questions.

Mr. Speaker, we will certainly consider the advice of the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, but, having said that, I will say to the member, the plan that Newfoundland Hydro have to submit to our department will outline reductions in sulfur and particulate matter. He is correct, 2002 was a very dry year which caused a bump in the amount of electricity that had to be generated at Newfoundland Hydro. It does vary from year to year. He is correct in saying that.

Mr. Speaker, we are taking a very close look at the emissions at Newfoundland Hydro, far more so than was happening in 2002. I do appreciate the suggestion by the member and we will take that into consideration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Thursday afternoon I was informed by Air Labrador that they will withdraw all air services from my district, St. Anthony and Stephenville, on or before April 13, 2005. Mr. Speaker, this has come as a blow to the people in the communities that I represent. Air Labrador is the only carrier in the Southeast Coast of Labrador and the only access for medical travel, freight and passengers during the winter months. Now, after lengthy discussions with Air Labrador over the weekend and today, it is obvious that government's intervention and co-operation is the only answer to salvage this air service in Coastal Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transportation and Works or Labrador Affairs, whoever prefers to answer. My question is: Was government aware that this decision was being made and that it was coming, and will you commit now to do whatever is necessary to maintain these essential air services in the Coastal Labrador region?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for her question. Certainly, as the Department of Transportation we were not given any advance notice of this decision by Air Labrador. I cannot speak for anybody else in government but I can speak for the Department of Transportation and Works. I saw this letter for the first time this morning. We are now reviewing the matter with my senior officials and we will certainly take the views of the hon. member into consideration, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, in all due respect to the minister, maybe I misunderstood this but I did understand that yourself and the Premier may have been informed that this was going to happen back about a month-and-a-half ago through another meeting with the airline companies. I guess my question is: Will government commit to ensure that Air Labrador services will be maintained for the transportation of medical patients from the Southern Coast of Labrador who have to go to hospital in St. Anthony and Goose Bay on a year-round basis?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Premier and I met with, I guess, the owner of Air Labrador several weeks ago on a number of matters but I can assure the House that this issue was not one of them. To the best of my recollection it was not raised at the meeting.

In terms of medevac; I understand that the company did raise medevac with us, as a matter of fact, in that discussion because they wanted us to look at the model that this company is presently - or wanted government to look at the model that the Quebec Government has in place for medevac transportation in northern regions. We did commit to doing that, Mr. Speaker, and are in the process of so doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: More than two years ago government commissioned a study for a regional airport in the Coastal Labrador area. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask when the study will be completed and is it government's intention to act immediately to build a regional airport in this area?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am going by memory but I do believe that the consultants, EDM Consultants Ltd out of Deer Lake are scheduled to complete their study, I believe it is some time in January. Now, do not hold me to that firm. I would have to check on it to be sure but I do believe, going from memory, that they are scheduled to finish some time in January. What their report will recommend, I do not know. I do know that they have been looking at the possibility of extending the airport in Port Hope Simpson and having that as a regional airport. I do know that some of the users have asked that government - I believe the previous government - expand the terms of reference of the consultant so that they could look at other sites. I do know that other sites have been looked at in the Southern Labrador region. As for the report, I do believe it is scheduled to be completed some time in early 2005.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, my questions are in relation to the contracting out of government work to Telelink. The minister told the House last Tuesday that this contract was from 1992. Mr. Speaker, that was incorrect. This is a new contract entered into in November of this year.

I ask the minister: Was the union aware, when they agreed to this so-called study or pilot project, that there was the option to renew the initial three month contract for a period of up to two years?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, back in 1992, entered into a contract with Telelink to provide after-hour services to the department. A couple of weeks ago, we decided to enter into a contract for a three month period so we could collect and analyze the data related to our telephone system. The union was certainly well aware that we were entering into this contract, this agreement, and they agreed to it.

Mr. Speaker, we feel in three months we should be able to have adequate data to analyze for our telephone service. In the meantime, if there is a need to go over the three month service, I will need to have sufficient information to see that contract needs to be extended, and at that time I would certainly consult the union to see if there is any need to extend it.

Mr. Speaker, in saying that, when we are analyzing the telephone system, the three month period that we have includes the Christmas season and now a Metrobus strike, there may be some anomalies in that information that we need to look at. If we are going to move ahead and make an evidence-based decision, we need to have the proper data to make those decisions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have time for one brief question and an equally brief answer.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: I guess the minister just confirmed that this contract will be extended - this new contract.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister - I have to ask this: If, after the three month trial, the data shows the department does not have enough workers to deal with the number of calls being received, will the minister commit to immediately hiring more public sector workers to deal with the situation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we are into this contract so we can get information on the telephone service that we offer. What I will commit to, as we move into our new computerized pay system, we will implement a system that meets both the needs of our workers and the clients who use that service.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

I am sorry, the Chair apologizes to the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a point of order, or maybe more correctly a point of clarification, and this is on two issues, actually. One is the use of lecterns in the House, a matter of decorum. I noticed that, on several occasions, the use of the lectern has become fairly frequent; yet, it is my understanding that when there is nothing in our Standing Orders to govern such a practice we look to the other authorities, namely the House of Commons, and I refer Your Honour to page 99 of Beauchesne, §332, which says that, except for the Budget minister's speech, wherein he is expressly permitted to use a lectern, they are forbidden in the House. I am just wondering if that rule would apply here, in the case of future practice.

Secondly, several of the members have asked for guidance regarding the use of electronics or communication equipment in the House. We have had several incidents of notebooks, so-called, and journals and laptops and blackberries being used in the House of Assembly, and, even more worrisome, cell phones while the House is in session. I believe this was raised with Your Honour in a particular instance here last week, so we would like some clarification, if we could, from the Chair as to what is or is not permissible for use within the House of Assembly.

Thank you.

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

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

Just to the point, to the member's first point on the use of lecterns, our Standing Orders are absent on it, Mr. Speaker. While we look to other jurisdictions - it may be the Parliament of Canada or even to the British Commonwealth - the fact of the matter is that it does not preclude you, Mr. Speaker, from making our own rules with respect to it.

Having said that, from a personal point of view, I really do not see a big issue if a member wants to use a lectern in trying to give very concise remarks. That would be the only unsolicited viewpoint I can offer to you, Mr. Speaker, in that regard. I think it would be more than acceptable.

Secondly, with the issue raised by the Opposition House Leader with respect to communication devices in the House, Mr. Speaker, it may be a timely issues for us to address generally through the Committee of the House or through the Internal Economy Commission, particularly as it comes to notebooks.

Ministers and all members show up in the House with their files, with their information. We live in an information age, where technology is immediately available to us. If we can access that through a communications device for internal use only - and by that I mean, Mr. Speaker, a device where we can access information but not necessarily communicate generally with the outside world. Other jurisdictions across the country have a more relaxed view, I guess, is the best way to put it; a more up-to-date view would be our view, I guess.

My suggestion to you, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the issue, you may want to consider a number of - maybe, the hon. Opposition House Leader, myself and some others who participate and sit on the Internal Economy Commission, may want to look at this issue and to visit in terms of what would be appropriate to bring that part of our House more up to date.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Without commenting on the specifics of the issues, these are issues that are related to rules of the House. I am not sure the Internal Economy Commission is the right place for that. We have had rules committees in the past that were more expansive than that, included all parties represented in the House. If Your Honour is to be making rulings on that, there should be some forum - not necessarily the floor of the House - whereby all members' views can be considered before establishing rules that could affect everybody's conduct in the future.

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly all members of the House, or most members, are aware that there is a tendency in all Parliaments for members to be able to become more attuned with modern communication technology. Certainly, there have been previous occasions when members have brought into the House - at least on two previous occasions a laptop has been brought into the House by some hon. members. The Speaker at that time did not rule these particular devices out of order, on the supposition that these were devices that were used by the member for internal use only, and were not being used for external communication.

Likewise, the issue of the notebook; several members asked me about the use of a notebook, again for internal use only so the member is able to read files or be able to do whatever the member wishes to do using the notebook.

On the use of the word cellphone, a cellphone is a communication device which this House, I believe, all hon. members would say, it is totally inappropriate for any member on the floor of the House at any time to be in communication by use of a cellphone. Any attempt to do so would be treated with absolute disapproval by this Speaker, because I do believe that is inappropriate for the decorum of the House and could only lead to disorder which is, of course, a priority for the Speaker and for all parliamentarians.

I would say to hon. members, on the use of a lectern, our House has not established precise guidelines in the Standing Orders on this matter. However, from time to time members, for various reasons - some because they have vision difficulties and need to get their notes closer to their focals and other times because if giving lengthy presentations it might be more comfortable for an hon. member. However, there has been a general practice in the House, although not in the Standing Orders, that the major speeches in the House - this would be true for all sides of the House. If there is a major speech being given the Chair would treat with, I think perhaps tendency towards approval, if a member is giving a major speech and wishes to use the lectern. However, in the past there has been a practice that the Budget Speech and other major addresses to the House would see the use of the lectern but it has been very seldom that other members have used a lectern on other occasions. Again, the Standing Orders are silent.

I would ask hon. members to be - shall we say, give the Chair some time to reflect because we would like to do a more detailed study. We have already had communications with other Houses but more to the point, other Houses are more relaxed than our House is here. So, the Chair will take the matter under advisement and do the necessary consultations, including suggestions for amendments to the Standing Orders.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to table today a few reports, the first: 2003-2004 Annual Report of the Treasury Board Secretariat. I also wish to table the Annual Report of the Atlantic Lottery Corporation. Also, the Annual Report of the Department of Finance and also, Mr. Speaker, 2004 Annual Report Supplementary for agencies that report to the department; Crown corporations, agencies, boards and commissions that report to my Department of Finance.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Tabling of further reports.

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

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Economic Diversification and Growth Enterprises Act requires the minister to give notice in the House of Assembly of corporations holding EDGE status. I hereby today table a list of companies that currently have EDGE designation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like today to table the Annual Report of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture for the year 2003-2004.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of reports?

The Chair, as Chair of the Commission of Internal Economy, would like to table the Report of the Commission of Internal Economy for the fiscal year April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions relating to the granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty. (Bill 67)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999." (Bill 66)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will on tomorrow move the following private member's resolution:

WHEREAS today seniors make up approximately 13 per cent of the Province's population, and by 2021, Statistics Canada predicts the number of seniors to grow more than one-quarter of the Province's population; and

WHEREAS it is necessary for government to incorporate this demographic shift into its planning process; and

WHEREAS seniors have, and continue to make, significant contributions to building our Province; and

WHEREAS the government is committed to the encouraging and participation of seniors in the planning for and responding to their needs;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVE that this House of Assembly support recent government initiatives, such the creation of the Division of Aging and Seniors, the Provincial Advisory Council on Aging and Seniors and the Ministerial Council on Aging and Seniors, which allow for significant participation and input from seniors to assist government in planning for and developing policies, programs and services that better accommodate an aging population, promote healthy aging, and foster an environment that better understands aging.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been given.

Petitions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition from residents in my district with regard to government's decision not to clear snow from the highway between Lodge Bay and Red Bay, Mr. Speaker.

Let me just tell you, the people in my district are more frustrated than they ever have been in their lives with regard to transportation. The government opposite has targeted this area when it comes to the marine services, when it comes to not clearing snow on the roads, and, Mr. Speaker, the blow that was delivered on Friday, that air services would be pulled out of this area, is virtually leaving the people in coastal Southern Labrador with no access to the outside world. That is what they have, absolutely no access; no way to get from one part of the district to the other; no way to be able to access the kind of medical services and other essential services that people in this Province enjoy.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a critical issue with regard to government's decision not to clear the snow off this road. It is more important than ever, as we are seeing a decline in air services, as we are seeing it more and more difficult for people in this area to be able to access outside the region. It is more important than ever for government to step up to the plate and to take a good, hard look at the decision that they made, and not only take a good hard look at it, but to make a reversal of that decision and to go and clear snow in that particular area to at least afford the residents of that region an opportunity to be able to access the highway system and be able to move from one area to the other using the highway connection.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to reconsider his decision again today.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents in this Province concerning the use of VLT video games. Mr. Speaker, they are very concerned that we have one VLT for every 155 adults in this Province, which is the highest ratio of any province in our country. The length of time that these machines have been around, in fourteen years, I do not think there is anything else in our society that people can look at and see the damage that they have inflicted on our citizens in the short span of fourteen years.

I would just like to point out, Mr. Speaker, how prominent a place that this holds. I have here an advertisement from the November 27 edition of The Telegram concerning: For sale; a lounge, restaurant and club - in close proximity to where we are located today. This club is for sale. It talks about a few things, but get this, one of the key points for selling this club: The operation has fifteen VLT machines, with profits from these machines being in excess of a quarter of a million dollars annually. A quarter of a million dollars annually profits from one, single club within a city close to St. John's. That is ridiculous! Total, total inadequate planning of a social policy by this government that would allow these machines to take over.

I am pleased to say that on Friday I received a letter from the Town of Wabana. It is addressed me, and it says: The Town Council of Wabana, on Bell Island, passed a resolution at its last regular council meeting, November 23, to support your efforts for a complete ban on VLTs in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. All council members voted in favour of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I think we are going to see more communities around this Province become involved in this. When we see advertisements such as this, where a property is for sale, one single property, one single building, whose profits are over a quarter of a million dollars a year from VLTs alone, I think that speaks volumes about the magnitude of the problem that we have in this Province with VLT machines.

Mr. Speaker, if you multiply the amount of dollars spent in these machines, which is significant, and government revenues this year are up over and above - about $5 million more that they were for the previous year, profits for the government on these machines - I think the data that I have read indicates that the majority of the money that his put into VLTs comes from people who have some form of addiction to gambling, with the VLTs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. COLLINS: I think, Mr. Speaker, it is time that government take a hard and fast look. I know there are a lot of dollars that come into provincial coffers from this, but I would impress upon the government to look seriously and see what damage these machines are doing to our society, and bite the bullet, take appropriate action to enforce tighter regulations until the Province, hopefully, will have a right to decide by way of referendum whether or not we want these things in our Province at all.

I would encourage the government again to make this a referendum on the September ballot for the municipal elections.

Thank you.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to present a petition on behalf of a gentleman from the District of Windsor-Springdale, actually, who forwarded this to me just today. It is on behalf of residents in Springdale, Rattling Brook, also Beachside and Triton. It concerns the intended amendments to the motorized snow vehicles act which is before the House.

The nature of the prayer is that this particular amendment has been brought forward into the House without consultation, or at least without proper consultation, on a wide public range, but that there was only consultation by the minister with certain select groups and not with the general public through either a House committee or through public hearings and so on. This gentleman wanted to make it quite clear that he and the persons who signed the petition are opposed to the amendments that are currently before the House, and he has asked that we let that be known to government by way of having this petition entered. Those people, of course, who signed their names to that petition, want that to be made known.

The crux of the difficulty is not so much with the amendments, I say, but, number one, there was no consultation before the amendments were submitted to the House on a wide general basis; and, more importantly, the amendments do not address the issue of traditional users. A very disgruntled gentleman - and all of these people here, I guess - in the sense that we are changing a law that will have a far-reaching impact upon snowmobile users in this Province.

The parts that are there are not necessarily bad for snowmobilers, or for the snowmobile industry. In fact, they may be very good for the upkeep of the snowmobiling infrastructure. It may be very good for tourism, and nobody is opposed to that, but there is some serious concern in the general public regarding the non-protection for traditional users, and that is where the beef is here.

The concern is that, if we are going to do this, we should do it right, to not only address the needs we need to address, such as the snowmobile associations and the grooming of the trails and the insurance aspects, but also to have the necessary exemptions and protections in place for the traditional users. Let's identify who they are. Let's identify many of the other unseen and undiscussed, at this point, concerns that have been raised regarding these amendments.

I understand that what I have here is only a part of what was put out in the District of Baie Verte, in the member's district, and put out in the Springdale District on Friday afternoon, and by Saturday afternoon, apparently, there were literally hundreds of people who had signed on. I have been asked and, if I can, I have asked that they be brought to the House before our anticipated close on Thursday so that we would have some idea.

I understand that the gentleman in question did, in fact, mail to the minister, as well, a copy of the petition so the minister is informed about the level of discontent in the public regarding this issue. On behalf of that gentleman, I would be pleased to speak to this petition.

Thank you.

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present this petition. The gist of the petition, I guess, is that Port aux Basques serves as a transfer point for over 80,000 transport trucks and commercial vehicles each year. These trucks travel now, under present conditions, hundreds of kilometres to Pynn's Brook, Grand Falls-Windsor or Goobies before they are ever being inspected or weighed. These weigh scales are necessary to ensure public safety. The permanent closure and reduction of enforcement inspections will cause an increase in the number of accidents and deaths on our highways. Motorists should not have to worry about the safety on provincial roads due to unsafe transport trucks and other commercial vehicles.

Mr. Speaker, the undersigned petitioners on this petition have asked me to bring forward their concerns regarding the number of accidents that are taking place on our highways since this has happened. I think, since September, the number of accidents are around nineteen right now. I have not had an update, but the last report I had there were nineteen.

Accidents are one component, Mr. Speaker, of what is happening with these trucks not being inspected. That is just one component. The greatest example of that, I guess - and that is why this petition was prompted to come from the West Coast - was the fact that early in the morning one overweight tractor trailer truck ran into another truck going along the highway. It was not in a position to be able to stop because of the load that it was carrying.

Mr. Speaker, later in the day, when there was a school bus on the highway, the same thing could have happened; that tractor trailer could have quite possibly hit a school bus, endangering the lives of their children.

MR. JOYCE: Five thousand pounds overweight.

MR. SWEENEY: When you look at 5,000 pounds overweight, as my colleague from Bay of Islands said, that is a large amount to be carrying that you should not be carrying.

Mr. Speaker, the amount of weight that is being carried in the trucks is evidenced only by going out on our highways, and you notice that the ruts in our highways are getting deeper by the month. It has been said a number of times that, yes, we may have lost the railway but the only thing that has happened is they have taken the tracks down and put them on our Trans-Canada, on our pavement. The ruts in the highway are now called tracks; that is what people are saying. You get down in those things -

MR. E. BYRNE:(Inaudible) happened in the last fourteen months?

MR. SWEENEY: That happened, Sir, in the past fourteen months, in particular; because, since last year's budget, those ruts are getting deeper and deeper because of overweight trucks that are taking place. The Member for Kilbride says: Did it happen over the past fourteen months? It has been going on due to a lot of things and the most part, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that now a truck can leave St. John's - which most of our freight does go out of St. John's here - and it can go out as far as Grand Falls before it gets a chance to be inspected, on a night like last Thursday where we had snow, and the sign was there; trucks do not cross the highway if the road conditions are not good.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time is expired.

MR. SWEENEY: To conclude, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Has leave been granted?

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

MR. SPEAKER: A few moments to clue up.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will conclude, because I have other petitions that are coming in. There have been a number of phone calls coming into my office on a regular basis, and I will be presenting this case further.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am assuming we are moving to Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

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

Order 9, Second Reading a bill, An Act Respecting The Government Purchasing Agency, Bill 41.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 41, An Act Respecting The Government Purchasing Agency, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Government Purchasing Agency." (Bill 41)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise in this hon. House to speak to Bill 41.

The Government Purchasing Agency is responsible for the acquisition of goods and services for government departments. When the Government Purchasing Agency was established in 1975, it was an independent agency and it reported directly to a minister. In 1983, the agency lost that independence and it then was made a part of the Department of Public Works and Services. Purchasing went from being the responsibility of an agency independent of a government department to an administrative responsibility of a department.

In 2001, the Auditor General - my hon. colleague was the Auditor General at the time - recommended that it should return back to its roots and be made an independent agency. We announced our intentions back in February of 2004. Government wants to ensure that the agency has the independence it needs to do its job on behalf of the people of this Province. This means assessing bids and recommending purchases in an accountable and transparent manner.

The Chief Operating Officer will have the authority to oversee and enforce all tendering including the monitoring of all exemptions and any instances where the award is not given to the lowest bidder. The ability of the Chief Operating Officer to challenge the awarding of public works contracts should help address the possibility of law suits relating to violation of the Public Tender Act. The Government Purchasing Agency will be under the management and the control of the Chief Operating Officer who will report Public Tender Act exemptions directly to the House of Assembly. We are maintaining the protection the Chief Operating Officer currently has in the existing legislation in that he can only be removed from office by a vote of the House of Assembly. The Chief Operating Officer will report to the Minister of Government Services, except where he has been given specific authority under the act.

This new structure will help government get the best value for its dollar by ensuring a greater degree of transparency and accountability in government purchasing. The people of the Province expect no less in times of fiscal restraint.

A training program will be developed to ensure greater knowledge of the Public Tender Act and its regulations by all departments and agencies that use the Public Tender Act.

Mr. Speaker, the Government Purchasing Agency will be responsible for the negotiation and implementation of regional and national trade agreements. The new agency will give the people of the Province a level of comfort that governments purchasing and tendering decisions are done in the best interest of the people of the Province, and not for political reasons.

Government is living up to its commitment to strengthen the Public Tender Act. The Government Purchasing Agency's ability to monitor and challenge government departments is greater because of the independence being given to it in the bill.

This ability is further enhanced by the separation of the Government Purchasing Agency and the Department of Transportation and Works. The Department of Transportation and Works has the largest purchasing requirement for government, and should therefore not have the responsibility for the agency that performs those purchases.

One aspect will remain with the Department of Transportation and Works, which is responsibility for the tendering of leasing and public works. This aspect of tendering requires a level of engineering expertise and project direction that resides with the Department of Transportation and Works. There is no cost benefit to relocating the operations to the Government Purchasing Agency because these staff also need to monitor the projects.

This responsibility will remain with the Department of Transportation and Works, with an enhanced monitoring function by the Government Purchasing Agency to ensure compliance. The agency will have the authority to challenge the awarding of these contracts. This ensures a greater level of accountability.

We feel that in order for the Government Purchasing Agency to fully accomplish its mandate it must be in a position of greater independence. This will ensure that the public purchasing decisions are made in a way that will get maximum benefit from the taxpayers' dollar. The agency will work with government and industry to promote business opportunities for companies in Newfoundland and Labrador. This will be done in co-operation with the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

The agency will work with local companies and the manufacturers association to ensure they can take advantage of supplier opportunities. This may occur through workshops and trade shows or whatever avenues are identified that will promote awareness among local companies and government-funded bodies of the opportunities that exist within the Province.

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will now be included under the Public Tender Act, bringing it in line with other public-funded bodies. It means Hydro's tendering and purchasing requirements will now be done in accordance with the Public Tender Act, and any exemptions to the act will be reported by the Chief Operating Officer directly to the House of Assembly. The Chief Operating Officer will also work with Hydro to ensure they are aware of their responsibilities under the legislation. This is part of government's commitment to openness and accountability.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the bill will make the Government Purchasing Agency independent of a government department and strengthen the Public Tender Act. The key changes to make it more accountable and transparent are: the Chief Operating Officer reporting directly to a minister as opposed to an assistant deputy minister; all public Tender Act exemptions being filed with the agency, as opposed to a minister, and a Chief Operating Officer reporting all exemptions directly to the Speaker of the House of Assembly; the Chief Operating Officer has the authority to challenge all public tender decisions of departments and government-funded bodies through an enhanced monitoring and audit function; the agency now being responsible for co-ordinating and directing joint purchasing, as opposed to a minister; requiring all invitations to tender and acceptance of tenders by government-funded bodies be filed with the agency within set time frames, which was not done before; and the Government Purchasing Agency being able to provide training and direction on the Public Tender Act.

Mr. Speaker, we are ensuring in this bill that we are getting the best value for public money, and that all government departments and publicly-funded bodies are accountable for the decisions that are made.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I listened to the minister present her bill, there are a few questions that came to my mind and a few concerns that I have, which I would like to share with this hon. House this afternoon.

The bill itself, I understand where it is coming from. It is An Act Respecting The Government Purchasing Agency and it is part of the government's plan to create more openness and accountability, as we said when we started off this session. I think transparency was another word that we used, but as I listened to the minister give her explanation, I can think of almost every other word other than transparent. Translucent might even been a better word.

The very fact that we have an advisory board that is appointed by the Chief Operating Officer of the agency who, quite coincidentally, is appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council which, for all intents and purposes, we all know what that means, and that is the Premier. So, the Chief Operating Officer of that agency is going to be a political appointment. There is no mention there about the Chief Operating Officer being advertised in the paper or hired from the public. It is, indeed, a person who is appointed by the Premier. So, in other words, a political appointment. Where is the openness and fairness and balance and transparency that is supposed to be there as part of this House's session? Somebody might even say that this reeks of patronage, but I do not see the merit of making this particular person answerable to the minister. What is the difference, I say to the minister, when under the present system the Chief Operating Officer answers to an assistant deputy minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: Well, you have taken away another person in the bureaucracy and you are making it more answerable to a political person. So, if you are going to take politics out of the Government Purchasing Agency, I think that is a regressive step. I certainly do not see where that comes in there.

As I was listening to the minister speak, it is certainly a clever way of avoiding accountability. I can further back that up when the minister says that the exemptions of this act will be tabled here in the House to the Speaker. Well, I have been here in this House since 1989, and I have never heard the Speaker questioned yet. I am sure there are people who have been around longer than that, who can tell me if that is a part of the parliamentary process where you can question the Speaker regarding an outside agency of this House.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: I will say to the Minister of Transportation and Works that he can have a moment to speak now himself without starting to razz me when I am trying to make my points here that I want to make, I say to the minister.

MR. RIDEOUT: Tell the truth (inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: Minister, if there is anyone here stretching the truth, I would say it is you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So where would a private member of this House get the opportunity to question the exemptions in this House? Under a normal process, a member would be able to come into the House and question the minister involved. In this particular situation, we have exempted the minister from questioning, and we have gone through to the Speaker. You certainly cannot ask the Chief Operating Officer what the exemptions were, and were they in the best interest of the public, as the minister said, to get the best bang for the buck, the best value for the taxpayers' dollar.

The other thing that is troubling about this as well, there is another piece of legislation that is coming forward some time - I am not sure if it is today or tomorrow, but certainly some time this week, because it is part of this - it is the Public Tender Act. When we look at these two bills together, this is really a two-pronged approach. If a person were either bit suspicious at all, it certainly takes away accountability from both of these acts. The first prong is this one; the next prong is the Public Tender Act, and in a number of places in the Public Tender Act, Request for Proposals, and the authority of who gets to make those requests.

Those are the things that I have some concerns about. Even in this act right here, there are many references here that say, in accordance or subject to the Public Tender Act. In the interest of efficiency to do so, the Chief Operating Officer so desires.

If the Chief Operating Officer is reporting directly to the minister, can the minister direct the Chief Operating Officer to do a certain thing in the best interest? In the interest of efficiency, the agency shall acquire by purchase or otherwise all goods or services that are required by a government funded body or a government funded department.

Again, up here it says in the other part, in section 5(2) "...where the chief operating officer is satisfied that it is in the interest of efficiency to do so..." - "... the agency may permit the acquisition of goods and services otherwise than through the agency, subject to the Public Tender Act...". Mr. Speaker, another point in this one, "The government is bound by the actions of the agency and the chief operating officer acting within the scope of authority conferred by this Act."

Mr. Speaker, that is somebody who was appointed by the government, appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which is the Premier. What power does he really have? If he circumvents or tries to enforce his act too much against the wishes of a minister, how long is that person going to have the job? We just lost a deputy minister a short while ago because she would not play the game. We are dealing with a circumstance where somebody can lose their job, and it so easily happens. We just watched it less than a month ago, and the Deputy Minister of Health went out the door.

AN HON. MEMBER: The former Minister of Health (inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: The former Minister of Health ends up in the back benches over one incident.

The Premier went out to a golf tournament on the West Coast and, rather than be harassed by the Victorian Order of Nurses, he makes the deal. He comes back in, did not tell the Minister of Health about it, and the Deputy Minister of Health obviously could not find money in her budget, so guess what? Rather than for her to be around and answer any questions, she is gone and the minister is demoted. A lady who, as Auditor General, was instrumental, I say, in this stuff coming forward - some of her recommendations. The former government brought things to a certain point but this brings it a little bit further. In the same process this bill goes a little bit, I would say, off the track. It goes off the track.

Mr. Speaker, this bill almost brings it back to where it was brought to in 1983 when it was taken from being an independent agency, when the government of the day - which was not a Liberal government, I say, Mr. Speaker - saw, in their own wisdom, that it was time to make a change. In some cases, history will show that it was a change that was - people made profit by some of the things that went on through the Government Purchasing Agency. There were a number incidents recorded in the history of this Province, in the 1980s, where things were not what we call kosher.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I am willing to allow this to come around to the point of the 1980s again. It took a while to get it up to where I think it should go; but, while the minister is exempt from all of this, the Chief Operating Officer certainly is not. It puts a Chief Operating Officer into a very tenuous position if he or she is told that, in the best interest of efficiency, I think you should exempt this particular transaction from being under the Government Purchasing Agency. For the sake of efficiency, follow the Public Tender Act and the exemptions that would come in there.

One of the big things in the Public Tender Act is, guess what? The Request for Proposals. There you go; there is a nice little change there, Request for Proposals.

MR. JOYCE: Ask if the Auditor General recommended that one.

MR. SWEENEY: I do not think the former Auditor General, or even the present Auditor General, went along with that, Request for Proposals. I say to the people of this Province, through the hon. members here in this House, that I will probably have the opportunity to stand here and say, I told you so.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask the former Auditor General will she speak on it today and voice her approval?

MR. SWEENEY: I suspect the former Auditor General may be speaking to Bill 41, but I do not think she will be speaking to the Public Tender Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't think so.

MR. SWEENEY: I don't think so. I am almost willing to bet on that one. I think that would be a wise bet for me to take.

AN HON. MEMBER: She has integrity, give her that.

MR. SWEENEY: Oh, she does, she does.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things here that I find in the grey area, the grey area of a bill that is supposed to make things open, accountable and transparent. That is why I started off my comments by saying, somewhat translucent, because Section 6 (1), notwithstanding subsection (1), "Where the chief operating officer is satisfied that it is in the interest of efficiency..." - what is that efficiency? To have all our money gone by March 31, have that department's funds cleared up by March 31, or is it that a friend of a friend in government finds it more efficient that they don't have to purchase something through this process?

Section 6 (3), "...may delegate to a person in the public service the power to acquire goods and services on behalf of the agency in accordance with the Public Tender Act." Here we go with the Public Tender Act again. What do we do? In accordance with the Public Tender Act, because it is more efficient not to follow this process, let's go out and request a proposal, let's request a price? I will tell you, this is making it easy, where the best bang for the buck will not be in the best interest of the public. I can guarantee you that.

The only part of this bill that I see here that I agree with is, sections 46 to 54 of the Works, Services and Transportation Act are repealed. I can understand that because, in other word, the Government Purchasing Agency was acting without the authority of this House since last year's budget, since last November actually, when government departments were realigned. The Government Purchasing Agency was put over into Government Services. I can see that part, bringing it back to a department, giving it a legal boss, I would say.

The notion, the very notion, of the Chief Operating Officer of this new open, transparent and accountable Government Purchasing Agency answering directly to a minister, that is where I lose my comfort level. My comfort level was much better with that particular person being answerable to an assistant deputy minister. At least there is a witness in the system. There is a public servant there who is there in that department, whose life long career is there in that department with government. That person in the system goes to executive meetings and answers to the minister, but the minister is not directly involved with the Chief Operating Officer, as is the case with this act.

I feel that this act is only another way of avoiding accountability. Guess what will happen? If we never figure out the reporting systems and how to question the Speaker with what is tabled, because you cannot ask the minister because the CEO tables to the House, and not the minister tabling to the House. We cannot question the Chief Operating Officer because he is not in the House - he or she is not here. If we question the minister responsible, what is he or she going to say? Not me, I did not table that. It was the Chief Operating Officer. So, I want to know more about the reporting process of that.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, this act takes the minister away from being answerable to this House, but the Chief Operating Officer is answerable to the minister outside the House. Here in the House the Speaker gets the exemptions tabled and we, as ordinary members, have nobody to ask. We cannot question the minister because the minister says: I didn't table that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: Oh, okay.

I say, Mr. Speaker, this act, as good as the government tells it to be, falls short of the true accountability and the transparency that this particular government has blown its own horn about for the past twelve months. I am sure some of the hon. members opposite me will get up and speak against this bill as well because I am sure they do not want to be implicated with something that will, in the future, bring them down in the polls and in the opinion of their constituents. This thing here leaves us in a way that there will be more questions than answers once this act is implemented.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak to Bill 41, An Act Respecting the Government Purchasing Agency. I am pleased to speak about this piece of legislation because I had been fairly close to the Government Purchasing Agency over the years. The agency, itself, was established in the mid-1970s, and I came to work with the provincial government in 1979. During all of my time, during my career with the public service, I have worked very closely with the Government Purchasing Agency.

The agency itself, Mr. Speaker, was fairly independent from the time it was established until 1983. In 1983 the Government Purchasing Agency was brought under the auspices of the Department of Public Works and Services and effectively it was absorbed into the department. It lost its independence and it reported to an assistant deputy minister in that department. That was something that I was very concerned about at the time because there are hundreds of millions of dollars in purchases being made by the provincial government and it is supposed to ensure that there is compliance with the Public Tender Act. So, when the Government Purchasing Agency lost its independence in the early 1980s it was a great reason for concern.

I do agree with removing the Government Purchasing Agency from the Department of Transportation and Works and putting it under the Department of Government Services because the Department of Transportation and Works is a department within government that does have the most purchases to which the Public Tender Act applies.

I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, with these amendments because once these amendments go through and the act is proclaimed, then we will have the most stringent Public Tender Act across Canada. Our jurisdiction will have the most stringent Public Tender Act and we will also have the most stringent administrative structure for the Government Purchasing Agency. So, that is something that we can be very, very proud of.

This new act is going to establish the Government Purchasing Agency as an independent agency. I will not go through the individual clauses of the act but there are a few issues which my hon. colleague across the floor from Carbonear, indicated that I would like to address. The Chief Operating Officer, there was some concern with regard to the independence of the Chief Operating Officer. Well, within the legislation itself it says that the Chief Operating Officer cannot be removed without a resolution of the House of Assembly. So, once the Chief Operating Officer gets into their job and starts working, if they do run into trouble and there is conflict between the government and the Chief Operating Officer, that Chief Operating Officer - because they are standing up and doing their job and effectively disagreeing with some of the things that government is doing - that Chief Operating Officer cannot be removed without a resolution of the House of Assembly. I think that is very important and I think that is a very important clause within the legislation.

The other part of the legislation that I found most interesting - and I would like, also, for my colleague from Carbonear to acknowledge - is that if the Chief Operating Officer does start functioning and starts disagreeing with government, can the government go in and reduce the salaries, sort of as a leverage to get the Chief Operating Officer to do things that the government wants him to do? I think that is a very important clause in the legislation and I was very interested to see it there because I do not think I have ever seen it in another piece of legislation.

I can sort of just relay a little story to the members here in the House and to the people who are viewing the House of Assembly this afternoon. When I was appointed as Auditor General I was not in there very long - I was only in there a matter of months - before I was informed by government that my salary was being reduced. So, I think that is a very important clause. I have not seen it in any other legislation but I was very surprised to see it and I was very pleased to see it because when my salary was reduced I did not have any recourse, that the government could just reduce the Auditor General's salary and that the Auditor General had no recourse. But now, enshrined in this legislation, if a Chief Operating Officer is trying to do their job and runs into conflict with government, the government cannot go back and reduce the salary of the Chief Operating Officer.

Now, the Chief Operating Office does have a very important responsibility under the Public Tender Act and under this new legislation for the Government Purchasing Agency. The Chief Operating Officer is responsible for acquiring all goods and services under the Public Tender Act for both departments and agencies of the Crown. Now, the Chief Operating Officer does not have to do that all himself or herself. They can delegate to a government department and they can delegate to a government agency but it is the responsibility of the Chief Operating Officer to monitor all of those purchases, to obtain the information he or she needs, and to ensure that the Public Tender Act is being followed.

One of the things we haven't talked about is that once this legislation is enacted, the Chief Operating Officer will have a lot more information available to him or her to monitor compliance with the Public Tender Act and provide that information to members of the House of Assembly. Another key feature in the legislation is that the Government Purchasing Agency will be subject to audit by the Auditor General, and I think that also is a very important requirement. I am sure the Auditor General will be quick to go in and do a review of the new Government Purchasing Agency to see how it is operating, and I am sure there will be recommendations there for further improvements.

The last thing I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, is that this is also another addition to our accountability agenda, and I am very pleased to see that this legislation is going to be enacted.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just have a couple of comments here at this principle stage, or second reading stage, on this particular Bill 41, Government Purchasing Agency. I have no difficulty whatsoever at any time that any government wants to become more open and more accountable to the public. I am totally supportive of it, but have some question as to how this particular government is trying to go down that road and where they are trying to end up at the end of the day in terms of consistency of position.

It is one thing to say we want to be open and we want to be accountable, but usually all of your actions, if that is you goal and that is the road that you are setting out on, you would try to have all of the different pieces of legislation that you are dealing with, I would think, be consistent in process so that you do not have one that lets you do this and one that lets you do something else, and at the end of the day you are not open and you are not accountable simply because of your inconsistencies in how you treat different facets of government business and different government operations. That is why I raise the question here.

For example - and I reference this to the minister at this stage now so that probably by the time we get to Committee stage we will have an answer - under section 4.(1): The Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall appoint the chief operating officer of the government purchasing agency. That is pretty clear.

Section 4.(2) says, "The chief operating officer shall hold office during good behaviour but shall be removed from office by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council on the passing by the House of Assembly of a resolution requiring the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to so remove the officer."

In my reading of things, that has the Lieutenant-Governor in Council hiring the person, but the Lieutenant-Governor in Council does not fire the person unless it comes back to the House of Assembly. That is the process that we have adopted here in terms of this purchasing agency. The difficulty I have in terms of process and consistency in this act and that method in comparison to other pieces of legislation we have - for example, in the Citizens' Representative, which we have done in the last while, and in the Privacy Commissioner, which we did today, and in regard to the Child and Youth Advocate which we did a little while ago, the process is quite clear. We want to provide the service in each of those areas when it comes to a Privacy Commissioner, Citizens' Representative, and Child and Youth Advocate, but in all of those cases the Lieutenant-Governor in Council made the recommendation of who should be hired, but the actually hiring was done in the House by resolution, as well as the firing.

That is where I have a problem again with consistency. If we are going to have the House fire the person, and if we already have three different parts of government - for example, the three officers who report to the Speaker, for example, who come and be appointed by resolution - why would we not have the same thing here?

We had a gentleman appointed today, by resolution of this House, to be the Privacy Commissioner, upon the recommendation of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Premier and Cabinet, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition and supported by the Leader of the NDP. Why wouldn't we, for consistency purposes, have the same hiring and firing process for that person right here?

It is one of those areas, where you are talking about the expenditure of government money, where people get suspicious. That is the background behind all of this accountability stuff, and transparency stuff, that you want to avoid, first of all, any appearance, even, that you did anything improper. You want to know that you have a set of guidelines that everybody knows what they have to do, and you want, at the end of the day, to have some process whereby you can check up on the person to make them account for what they did. Those are very laudable goals, and nobody has any problems with those, but I ask the minister - maybe she can find an answer - Why are we treating this position, which deals with a lot of government money, with a lot of taxpayers' money, why are we treating this person differently than the Citizens' Representative, the Privacy Commissioner, and the Child and Youth Advocate? We are not being consistent in your drive and your goal for openness and accountability if you have different processes for the hiring and firing of people.

I raised that question again today because people ask questions when they do not get answers, or if they get answers that they cannot understand - not that they do not want to understand, but they cannot understand because they do not get the background and explanation with it.

I referred today, for example, we had a question here about another piece of legislation, the Electoral Boundaries Commission. The question was asked of the minister - and there is an act, by the way, just so the people in TV land can understand, there is an act, a law, in this Province which says that at the end of every ten years the Minister of Justice shall name a committee. He does it in consultation. The Speaker actually announces it, there is somebody from each of the political parties, and a retired Justice of the Supreme Court chairs that committee. It is a process set out in the electoral boundaries committee. That law says that had to be done no later than March 31, last year, in 2003. So, this person who was the Minister of Justice at the time made sure that was done. Retired Justice O'Neill of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland Appeal Division was appointed chair, and the parties all had representation on it, and the Speaker of the House announced it. That was announced in August of 2003.

Under that law, it says that they have to have their report done within a year. Now, the Minister of Justice today tells me, and says in Question Period, they could not get it done within the year so they became functus because they could not get it done. I say that is fair ball. If the committee themselves came back and said we cannot do the report under the Electoral Boundaries Commission that we were instructed to do within the time frame, sorry, we cannot do it, the question then becomes: What do you do now? We know now that we have - whether it was the former government or a new government - we know that we have a government now which has a problem. They have an act that said you must do such and such, that is not being complied with, because the government accepted that rationale of the committee and said: Okay, you cannot get it done so you are functus, but that does not answer the question of: How do we comply with the Electoral Boundaries Act so that we are not in breach of the law?

I ask the minister, and the Leader of the Opposition asked the minister today: Well, when is this going to happen? The minister says: We are going to strike that committee now in 2006. That was his answer in Question Period today. This is a transparent and open government that we already see in this session of the House; their accountability and openness and transparency act is not going to come into play itself until April of 2008.

We have now seen an explanation today with the electoral boundaries thing, when they know they are in breach of a law - there is a law in this Province today that was not complied with, that they are not going to get it done in a timely fashion, which they could have done in the spring of 2004, or which they could have done in this session of the House, or which they could do in 2005 - and the minister says, we will look at it in 2006.

Now, that is when people start to think, and MHAs start to wonder, well, what is going to be the rules that are in play? Because this crowd is telling us they want to have an election the second Tuesday in October of 2007. What are the rules that are going to be in play come October of 2007?

We talk about process again, what gives this open and accountable government the right to say that the deadline is past, the committee is functus, in our view, but we will look at it in 2006? Now, that leaves itself open to manipulation. Will the government amend the Electoral Boundaries Act at any time between now and October, 2007 so as to comply with the law? - number one. How can this government not comply with the law and set a deadline as to when they will comply? I submit that they have no right to do that. If they violate an act which they are in violation of, they must take remedial action as soon as possible and practical. It is certainly not practical to suggest that, as the Minister of Justice says: Oh, we will deal with that in 2006. No explanation of how we are going to deal with it. No explanation of when we are going to deal with it. We will deal with that in 2006. We are the government, we can break the law. Meanwhile, here we are with this farcical, and I say farcical, explanations to the public on all this legislation we are dealing with that we are open and accountable. But you cannot have it both ways, I would submit. You cannot have it both ways. Consistency is what is missing. That is why we question.

We see things here like the Government Purchasing Agency. Nobody has any problem with being open and accountable under the Government Purchasing Agency but you leave little openings all the time that can get people questioning your sincerity and your integrity about wanting to do it right. We will hire them, but if we do not like them we will come back to the House to get you all to fire them. Well, if it is such an honourable integrity-filled position, which no doubt we would want there and we are going to be open and accountable, why wouldn't you give the name to everybody up-front and have the House totally supported? I think that would stand the government in good stead, like anybody who is in this House. I would think forty-eight members are going to be hard-pressed to stand up in this House anytime in the future and say we made a mistake with Phil Wall as Privacy Commissioner. I do believe we all sanctioned that today.

We would be pretty hypocritical if we stood up here in the future and said: No, we made a bad choice there. We shouldn't have done that. I did not agree with that. If you did not agree with it, today was the time to speak your piece. That is why I say about these important government officers, such as the Chief Operating Officer, who is going to be spending millions, even billions of dollars, and it is not right that just anybody appoint him. It should be somebody who is held to a very high standard and somebody who is acceptable by all political parties, and that removes any concern about manipulative behaviour that anyone in the general public might have.

So, that is the nature of my concerns and I tried to highlight that by showing the minister why I feel that way because it is not what we do in other areas of hiring and firing. I am at a loss when it comes to being open and transparent, yet I asked the Minister of Justice for explanations about the electoral boundaries thing and all I get is: We are going to do that some time in the future; can't tell you when we are going to do it; can't tell you what we are going to do. Yes, we are in breach of the law. Yes, we do not have the commission set up like we are supposed to do, but we just have not worked our way through that one yet. When we get around to it, we will tell you.

I will submit there are forty-eight people in this House, including himself, who have a right to know. We have a right to know if the Member for Springdale-Windsor is going to have a district that he is going to work in next time or not. I think he should know, the same as I should know or anyone else here should know, as soon as possible and practical, about what the electoral boundary set up is going to be in this Province. We come here and talk about fixed terms, ranting and raving about having the second week in October, 2007, as the election date. Yet, the Minister of Justice cannot even tell us where the election is going to be. It is going to be in the Province but whether it is going to be forty-eight or forty-two or ten, we do not know. The only thing we have to go on is the Premier's expressed view there are going to be less. That is all. We only know there are going to be less.

I know there is some difficulty in the sense of Labrador. If you follow the precise rules of the Electoral Boundaries Act, as it is currently worded, it would mean a reduction of seats in Labrador. Now, maybe that is going to change. We do not know. If we are open and accountable, I say to the minister - getting up here again today. I thought we were past this stay tuned thing. I thought we got past stay tuned. I heard stay tuned on the privacy commissioner for the last eight months, and today we got an answer. I say to the Minister of Justice, we are back again into stay-tuned territory. We will tell you later on what we are going to do about the election. Stay tuned! God forbid, it is only December of 2004 and we are probably going to have to stay tuned until 2006, according to his words, before we get any indication of what the setup is going to be in the next election.

Now, the Leader of the Opposition often raises the question here about consistency and giving information. A part of being open and transparent is giving people a heads up. I have asked the Minister of Justice, lots of times: What is going on with the Electoral Boundaries Commission? We don't get an answer until today and then we are told 2006.

The minister, I am sure, responsible for this bill, the Minister of Government Services, certainly now gets some appreciation of why we are dubious about your motivations. The intent of openness and accountability, I would trust, is to avoid persons suggesting that you might be manipulative. That is the whole purpose of this, you want to account for what you did, you want to tell people what you did, and you want to remove any suggestion that you might ever manipulate anything.

I would also like to ask the minister - maybe she can give me an answer to this in Committee stage as well: How does, or does this at all, impact in any way upon the Agreement on Internal Trade that we have in Canada and in provinces, in particular? By doing this, are we in any way, possibly or might be, in breach of any existing laws that we have? I don't know the answer, that is why I ask you. Maybe the minister can explain, when she gets up, as to what that Agreement on Internal Trade is about and why this doesn't impact. We have another bill here to and I am sure it will come up in conjunction with that one, the Public Tender Act. I just don't know the answers, but I have some questions, and I would feel more comfortable in being supportive of the bill once I get the answers to those types of questions.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do want to say a few words about Bill 41, An Act Respecting The Government Purchasing Agency. I think here, at second reading, you talk about the principle of the bill pretty clearly. The principle of having a more independent purchasing agency, rather than under the direct control of the minister, is, in theory, a good thing, but I do want to raise similar kinds of concerns as I have heard expressed by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile and the Opposition House Leader.

We do have, in the Chief Operating Officer - and I know the person who has been appointed is a competent, capable person, and I would expect this person to do a proper job, but, in one sense, he is neither fish nor fowl. He is not an officer of the House and reports to the minister, but the kinds of things the minister used to report to the House, like the exceptions to the Public Tender Act, for which the minister had to answer - we get these reports every time the House is in session. We get four or five or six reports for the months prior to, on exceptions to the Public Tender Act which say why the government or the government agency didn't follow the Public Tender Act in a particular case. Now, if we have a problem with any of those exceptions, or there is an issue which comes up, we can ask the minister and the minister has to respond to it under the legislation because it is the minister who has approved those exceptions. Now we have a situation, Mr. Speaker, where the reports are not being made by the minister; they are being made by the Chief Operating Officer. Yet, to some extent, the Chief Operating Officer does not have control over those exceptions.

We have some apparently contradictory kind of things contained in the act as well. Clause 10 talks about repealing section 8 of the Public Tender Act, and it appears to require, in section 8.(1), that if the government funded body inviting the tender does not want to give the contract to the preferred bidder it has to go the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Then, subsection (2) says, "Notwithstanding subsection (1), a head of a government funded body may, where authorized by the regulations to do so and as prescribed, reject the preferred bidder and award the contract to a person other than the preferred bidder."

We have the Cabinet having to approve them on the one hand, and then regulations can be made saying that they do not have to approve it. I find it very curious, and I realize that we can have the argument that we had the other night, that we do not have the regulations before the House, and we do not know what is going to be in the regulations, and wait until we get the regulations, et cetera, et cetera, to complain about it. We are now giving the Lieutenant-Governor in Council not only the authority to say no, we are not going to give the tender to the preferred bidder - for example, the one with the lowest price - but the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Cabinet in others words, has to deal with that. Then, the Cabinet has the right to make regulations to decide that it does not have to be granted to the preferred bidder.

Which way is it, Mr. Speaker? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say the Cabinet is going to take responsibility for it and, at the same time, say you are going to have regulations allowing the head of a government funded body to do it and avoid the preferred bidder when the regulations allow it, unless you have idea what exactly those regulations are going to be.

It does not even prescribe, it does not say by dollar amount. For example, if it said by regulation under a certain amount then we would know that there is going to be a figure. We would not have special regulations authorizing avoiding of the preferred bidder in certain circumstances. Mr. Speaker, that is one of the concerns I have with the act, looking at the way it is written here.

We have, under clause 4, where the Chief Operating Officer is apparently neither fish nor foul. He is a direct employee of the government; he is appointed by the Cabinet and can only be removed by the passing of a resolution in the House of Assembly.

As the Member for Topsail said, the salary of the Chief Operating Officer shall not be reduced without the assent of the House of Assembly. I thought I heard her say that when she was Auditor General she had her salary reduced, not by the Public Accounts Committee, I don't imagine, or not by the Estimates Committee, but by the government itself. The member felt that somehow, I presume, that was an attempt to interfere with the independence of the Auditor General. I see her nodding her head there. Obviously, that was the kind of thing that would be regarded as an interference if you were dealing with judges or the independence of the judiciary, which is very highly regarded in our law and legal system. The government, of course, hardly has the power to interfere with recommendations for raises, as the Opposition House Leader knows from being Minister of Justice. Obviously, that kind of change would indeed interfere with the independence of such an officer.

Why don't we make this person an officer of the House? If we are going to do that, if we are going to have those kinds of controls over the Chief Operating Officer to the point that they cannot be changed without a resolution of the House, then perhaps we should have that person be an officer of the House and report to the House as well, as we do with the Auditor General, as we do with the Chief Elections Officer, as we do with the Privacy Commissioner, as we do with the Ombudsperson, the Citizens' Representative. All of these individuals report to the House.

It seems to me that what the government is trying to do here is to elevate the awarding of public tenders to a very special type of circumstance where there is required to be some independence of thought as opposed to influence from the government. If we are going to do that, perhaps we should go all the way.

It is kind of interesting, Mr. Speaker, that one of the first acts of the government that replaced the Smallwood government back in the 1970s - and it was considered a revolutionary idea at the time - that we should actually have a Public Tender Act; that no longer would road construction, and building construction, and government purchasing, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, be something that government would do without even having public tenders. Obviously, it was well-known in the political and financial and business community of Newfoundland and Labrador that certain people got certain road contracts and they had to hire certain subcontractors in order to do this part of it, and, if you were building a building, that certain people got the electrical contract and certain people got the roofing contract that went with it, and someone was doing et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. That was the way of political and business life in this community prior to the creation of the Public Tender Act by the Moores government in the 1970s, and was considered a revolutionary change in the approach to government.

I guess we have come a long way, to some extent, Mr. Speaker, when we are now saying, and this government is now saying, that not only do we want to have the Public Tender Act strengthened and made more objective, we are coming very close to making the awarding of public tenders an activity that is governed by the House of Assembly through the procedures of the House as opposed to government itself - although we are not really do it. We are making it look like we are doing that, and that is the problem I have. If we are go to the stage of saying, look, this person cannot be removed except by the House of Assembly, this person shall not have their salary decreased except by the House of Assembly, this person reports exceptions, for example, to the Public Tender Act to the House of Assembly, why do we not have this person an officer of the House of Assembly, with the kind of independence that comes with that?

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, these are really the major comments that I have about the Public Tender Act. As I say, I have no difficulty with the person who has been appointed. I do not know him individually, but I know him by reputation to be an experienced and competent individual who I have no reason to believe would not be impartial and would not respond to suggestions by the minister that certain things be done in a certain way, but there have been lots of circumstances where the awarding of public tendering has not only been open to question in a sense that there were problems with some of the legal aspects of the granting of public tenders in certain cases, but also just with the process itself being erratic to the point that some bidders appeared to get preference because they would cancel the tender, reissue the tender with slightly different calculations as to how the specifics should work, which appeared to allow other people to bid on a job which they were not allowed or able to bid on before.

These are the kinds of things that can happen that, in addition to having the problem of awarding tenders to the lowest bidder or not to the lowest bidder, can seem to be manipulating the system. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Chief Operating Officer would have control over those practices to a very large extent. I think that, if that person was truly independent and could report directly to the House of Assembly on anomalies - and this is where we have the problem, Mr. Speaker. For example, if there is non-compliance by a member of this House with the reporting requirements, a report is made to the House. If there are shenanigans going on in the Public Accounts, the Auditor General makes a report to this House. If there is something wrong under the Chief Electoral Office that needs to be reported, that report comes to this House, drawing it to the attention of this House.

Mr. Speaker, with the exception of the exclusions under the Public Tender Act, which is a report that we get consistently here anyway, that is the only report that the Chief Operating Officer of the Government Purchasing Agency makes to this House. I would prefer to see a little broader reporting ability. The Chief Operating Officer should have the power to report to this House on any issues that he finds going on, in the granting of public tendering, that he feels are contrary to the principle of having a fair and objective and reasonable public tendering process, that a report to this House could be made without fear or favour by the Chief Operating Officer. That itself would act as a deterrent, to prevent government bodies and government departments from manipulating the process in any way, shape or form.

I would be comfortable with that, Mr. Speaker, because we need to go the distance. If we are going to suggest, through various provisions in this legislation, that this is some kind of quasi officer of the House, that the House of Assembly's permission is needed to get rid of a Chief Operating Officer or to change their salary, then I think there ought to be another reporting power to the House, so that if there are anomalies, if there are things that need to be brought to the attention of members of the House, that can be done by the Chief Operating Officer without fear or favour.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, the principle of having a separate Government Purchasing Agency that has more independence is certainly supported by this hon. member and by our caucus. We would look forward to seeing more stringent reporting requirements. When we get to committee, we will also look to see the minister explain, when she closes debate, what her explanation is of the anomalies between section 8(1) and 8(2) of the Public Tender Act, by virtue of clause 10 of this act, where the Cabinet has certain power to give authority, to avoid awarding a contract to the preferred bidder, and yet in clause 8(2) there will be regulations which will apparently authorize heads of government funded bodies to reject the preferred bidder and award the contract to a person other than that preferred bidder. How does she reconcile those two, and would she agree that the Chief Operating Officer may, in fact, report to the House of Assembly on that?

We see clause 8(5) is very interesting because it touches on what I raised, "The Chief Operating Officer of the Government Purchasing Agency may review the grounds on which a government funded body awarded a contract to a person other than a preferred bidder, including past practices of the government funded body in making such an award, and may express his or her opinion to the head of the government funded body with respect to the sufficiency of the grounds for awarding the contract to a person other than a preferred bidder." Mr. Speaker, that is very interesting and I am glad the Chief Operating Officer is given that authority. Perhaps, it would be important for the House of Assembly to have the benefit of that opinion as well, rather than just to tell the minister after the fact, because this is an after-the-fact comment. Wouldn't it be more reasonable for the Chief Operating Officer, if he is reporting after the fact, to report to the House and not to the minister involved?

If it was before, I can understand. If it was before the minister went ahead and made the contract award, I could understand the Chief Operating Officer being able to say or suggest to the department head or whoever is involved: I do not think this would be wise. It is not in keeping with past practices, et cetera. That would be very useful and, I would submit, it could easily be something between the head of that department and the Chief Operating Officer of the Government Purchasing Agency, because it is advice in the nature of hoping to influence the decision. If it is comments being made after the fact, and if the Chief Operating Officer was in the position to point out that the department head's or minister's decision was not in keeping with past practices, and did have a problem with it, then that opinion should, perhaps, be contained in a report to the House of Assembly. Again, that would be consistent with elevating the position of Chief Operating Officer closer to that of being an officer of this House who reports to this House.

Those are my comments, Mr. Speaker, on this bill. I look forward to further debate during Committee stage of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Government Services speaks now, she will close the debate on Bill 41.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleagues for their commentary, a couple of issues that were raised about the Chief Operating Officer appointed by the Cabinet as opposed to the House of Assembly. This is consistent, the same as the Comptroller General and the Chair of the Public Service Commission.

There was another issue raised about what impact it would have on our Internal Trade Agreement. There will be no impact under this legislation. We have a stringent Public Tender Act that will take care of that.

This legislation will give back the independence to the Government Purchasing Agency. Also the Chief Operating Officer will report all exemptions to the House of Assembly. The Chief Operating Officer will have the authority to oversee and enforce all tenders, including the monitoring of all exemptions. The Chief Operating Officer will report directly to a minister, at this time the Government Services Minister, and the GPA will have a greater autonomy, will be more accountable and transparent. This is one of the most stringent Public Tender Acts that is in jurisdictions.

We are living up to our commitment of being transparent and accountable to the people of the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Government Purchasing Agency, Bill 41.

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?

AN HON. MEMBER: Later.

MR. SPEAKER: Later.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Government Purchasing Agency," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently by leave. (Bill 41)

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

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

I want to move to Order 12, Second Reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act, Bill 53. This act is a companion act to the Government Purchasing Agency which we just finished debating.

I will sit down and let the minister introduce that piece of legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 53, entitled, An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend the Public Tender Act." (Bill 53)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill 53 today. It is with regard to Request for Proposals, the RFPs. Key points that I want to make with regard to this bill is that now this gives the ministers of each department the authority to authorize Request for Proposals, which used to be with Cabinet. So they do have flexibility. The accountability is built into the act, the same reporting requirements for the Request for Proposals, as tenders will have to be reported here to the House of Assembly.

All RFPs will have to be filed with the Government Purchasing Agency and reported directly here at the House by the Chief Operating Officer.

The RFPs provide for more flexibility, creativity and innovation which certain projects require. Request for Proposals are often used in situations where design details are not available and innovation or concepts are being sought.

The greater use of the RFPs, where appropriate, will also allow for the evaluation of proposals based on - not only on price but on other criteria that would add value to the Province. These are key points. Also, the Public Tender Act is amended to bring the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro inline with other public-funded bodies. It means that the Hydro tendering and purchasing requirements will now be done in accordance with the Public Tender Act.

On that note, I speak to Bill 53.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we just went through the last hour or so debating the amendments to the Public Tender Act and setting up an agency, and now we are in the process of wiping out the legislation that we just passed. The strange thing about it is that we normally - when the members opposite sat on this side of the House, there was a time when, for example, they were demanding when we had an emergency situation on one of our provincial ferries, that we would go to public tender. In other words, if we had a major mechanical failure on one of our ferries they were up everyday asking questions. How come you are not going to public tender? In other words, you would tie up the board at the wharf for five or six months and go to public tender.

What they are doing here, before this approval had to be done by Cabinet any Request for Proposals - to start off with, the committees of Cabinet would have to determine whether there was a need for Request for Proposals. So, this would normally happen at the Cabinet committee meetings and then to the main Cabinet, and they would determine whether it was going to be a Request for Proposals or whether something would go for a public tender.

What we are doing here is that every minister over there, right now, can, themselves, decide what they are going to send out for Request for Proposals. I would like to know, for example. When the minister introduced the bill, she said: Sometimes the design details are not available. Now, who in the name of Moses would send out a Request for Proposals if they did not know what the details were and what they were looking for? This is a bill that they are going to do through the backdoor what they cannot do through the front door. It is a bill to contravene the Public Tender Act. What services? What products?

The former Auditor General and the Member for Topsail said: We do hundreds of millions of dollars worth of business, the government does yearly. I would like to know, for example, what goods and services are going to be exempt from the Public Tender Act and go for a Request for Proposals? This particular amendment to the Public Tender Act is open to abuse because it is going to be - not by the Cabinet.

If you are sitting around a Cabinet Table, and you go through the analysis of the Cabinet committees, there is a good possibility that somebody would question what is going on. In this case, the individual minister within a department will determine what goods and services, within that department, they are going to send out for a Request for Proposals. Is it road construction and paving? Is that going to be under Request for Proposals? Are leasing requirements going to be under Request for Proposals? It said it will not be based on price. It will be based on value. Does a property, for example, that has a door which goes this way and that way or if the door is revolving, is that a better value for the leased space, or if it is cushion floor instead of carpet? I mean, you can come up with all kinds of reasons under this particular section in this particular act to justify giving out work to their friends.

There is nothing here about reporting. How is this going to be reported? Who is going to monitor it? Who is going to evaluate it to see that we have fair value for our dollars? There is nothing in this particular act. Here is an act that will give the authority to the minister to go out and purchase anything that they want without going to a public tender. So, why did we waste all this time debating this particular Bill 41? Why set up the Government Purchasing Agency? Because we have this one here which says this exempts everything here, and now the ministers can go out and have Requests for Proposals.

We talk about open and accountability. I mean we are going back to the Smallwood days. This is a Smallwood piece of legislation. When hon. members talked about: we would determine who was going to get the roofing contract, who was going to get the electrical, who was going to get the plumbing. Well, right now a Minister of the Crown, alone, without consultation with the Cabinet, can determine who is going to get goods and services in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Right now we are here on the eve of Christmas Eve doing an amendment to this particular act, throwing it on the Table of the House of Assembly just before Christmas; sneaking it through just before the Christmas break. Sneaking it through before the Christmas break and looking at, nobody would have a look at it and see what they are doing here. Because right here, what they are doing right now is eliminating the need for a public tender. I defy any person to get up here and say that they can contradict what I am saying, because why would you? Under the act right now there are provisions for Requests for Proposals and there is a system.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: If the hon. member wants to talk about Trans City and he wants to talk about everything else. I can talk about electrical fixtures that were installed in buildings that were never installed and all that sort of stuff. If you want to go back in history, I can go back in history and talk about in the Peckford years and the Moores years. I worked in government too, you know. I worked for sixteen years. I worked side by side with the Member for Topsail. If you want to talk about what happened in the past, I can go back and talk about what happened in the past, but we are looking to the future and right here what we are doing is going back in the past. You are going back to the Smallwood years when a Minister of the Crown now will determine who can get a building - who will lease a building without any consultation with their Cabinet colleagues whatsoever. With a stroke of the pen the minister can defy any resemblance of public tendering whatsoever and do a Request for Proposals, and it is not going to be based on price; it is going to be based on value.

I think right here, right now, that the government needs to be exposed in terms of what they are doing in this Province with this particular act, because what they are doing is going out and being able to reward their friends with all kinds of contracts without any reference to the public tendering.

I do not know if people out there in the Province - the Public Tender Act, as such, if there are goods or services, what happens now, the process is this one: Under the public tendering system it is advertised - advertised in the papers and advertised widely - for all of the businesses to see, that the government is looking to rent space in the St. John's metro area. All of that information is spread out so that everybody in the Province knows that there is a public tender, and it is in the paper, and tenders will close in three weeks' time.

The process right now, under the Government Purchasing Agency, is that all of that comes in to a central agency, is deposited in a box, sealed tenders - nobody sees them - to be open at a certain date, 3:00 p.m. on Friday. All of the people who tendered on that particular space, leasing or tender, can view the opening of that tender. Everybody in the room knows, for example, that D and D company was the lowest tender and bid $15 a square foot. Well, what we are doing here under this particular one, the Request for Proposals by the minister, he will do a value and he might say that the property on Thorburn Road is more valuable or is better than the property on Water Street, and he does not have to accept the lowest of the tenders. He can justify it based on other specifications, other than the price.

To me, this is disgraceful what this government is doing right now. They are going to be contravening the Public Tender Act. I think it is ridiculous. I think the hon. Government House Leader would do the wisest thing now, not to amend this bill but to take it off the Table completely. To me, it is ridiculous what is happening in this House of Assembly this afternoon in terms of openness and transparency. Yes it is very, very open. Right now, you are going to say there is no public tendering, and Requests for Proposals, and all of these people out there, you do not need to get around that box to see if you are going to get it, because the work now will go to the friends of the government.

If you pass this legislation, it will be a great correlation between another piece of information that is tabled in this House and who gets the work in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, so I think this is the worst piece of legislation that was ever brought into this House of Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to say a few words on Bill 53, An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act.

I have to say that the previous speaker covered the ground very well in terms of what we are doing here. Having just provided for an increased and more sensible way and more objective way to set up public tendering in this Province, we are now going the other way, Mr. Speaker. We are saying, well, we have a stronger and more workable and more fair and more responsible Public Tender Act, but, don't worry, we are going to make it easy for you ministers. All you have to do to avoid the Public Tender Act now is request proposals; because requesting proposals is a lot different, Mr. Speaker, than calling for a public tender.

Now, there may be circumstances when a public tender for some types of services, where you end up having to compare apples and oranges. It is not a question of the government wanting to buy a vehicle, and the vehicle has to be four-wheel drive and has to be a certain horse power, et cetera, et cetera, and you could have five different kinds of vehicles being submitted for tender and the government has to decide between a Chevy Blazer and a Jeep Cherokee, or something like that. Colour is not an issue; the function of the vehicle is the issue. You would not call for proposals in a situation like that, Mr. Speaker, and say, well, I bought the more expensive car because it was a red one and that is the kind we wanted, or a blue one in the case of this government, and that is the kind we wanted. That would not be the reasonable thing to do, but there are circumstances where you do need to have a Request for Proposals, certain types of services that may be different, different ways of doing the same thing might be available, so there are some special circumstances. I would think that they would be fairly rare.

I would think that it would be fairly rare for a government to go about looking for proposals when deciding to offer a service or to acquire a service or goods and that the normal rule that applies right now, in that the Cabinet meets fairly regularly - I understand they meet once a week, that is normally the procedure, that Cabinet meets at least once a week - and if there is a request for a deferral of the public tender proposal, the usual route then, the Cabinet would be given an explanation why and the Cabinet would take responsibility for it.

You know, there is an old saying, of course, that everyone is familiar with: It is no good to close the barn door after the horse is gone. In the case of giving the ministers authority to do this, you might find out about it later and it may be too late, whereas if the Cabinet - and the Cabinet meets fairly regularly, at least once a week, sometimes more, I am sure - to have some minister explain to the Cabinet, or a paper - I gather it is fairly rare, and maybe the minister can explain how often this happens - there should not be any real issue for the Cabinet to take responsibility for avoiding the Public Tender Act and calling for proposals instead of bids, and having various, different ways of doing it.

It seems to me that this bill is unnecessary, that we have a Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Cabinet, that meets regularly. Avoidance of public tendering is something that should be fairly rare, and Cabinet should be able to approve it on a regular basis.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, there is no need of this legislation. The public should have greater confidence in the public tendering process, and the Cabinet should take responsibility for it. It is a lot easier for a minister to put his or her initials on a request from a deputy or from somebody else. It is a lot easier for a minister to put the initials down when something comes across his or her desk than it is to say: I don't know about that. I am going to have to go and convince my Cabinet colleagues that is the wise thing to do.

It would engender a little bit more thought, Mr. Speaker, than just approving a request by a deputy or some department head or some agency, saying: Let's go the call for proposal route on this and the minister gets the right to approve it.

I would suspect that, in the past, when certain things have been done like that and have caused problems for government, that if it had come to the full Cabinet and the full Cabinet had to take responsibility for it, some of the problems that we have encountered would not have happened. It is a kind of thing that can involve large amounts of money. You could call a Request for Proposals on the building of a hospital. The so-called design, build, operate programs are often Requests for Proposals. You could have very different kinds of things coming forward that tend to allow government far more flexibility in choosing a winner of a government expenditure, whether for goods or services, than you have with the public tendering process.

I suspect, Mr. Speaker, if this government is planning to pass this legislation, that maybe it has plans in the future for a far wider use of calls for proposals than we have had in the past. Perhaps the minister can explain that. How many Requests for Proposals have gone out as compared to public tenders in the past, since this government has been in office and in previous times, and does the minister anticipate that this is something that is going to be very widely used by government in the future?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to move on to some other business. First of all, two motions. I want to move Motion 3. I move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, and, companion to that, Mr. Speaker, I want also to move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: We will take them individually.

The motion is that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, being Monday, December 13.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

The second motion as put forward by the Government House Leader is that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, being Monday, December 13.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

Motion, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. nor at 10:00 p.m. today, Monday, December 13, 2004, carried.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the support of my colleague, the Member for Harbour Grace-Carbonear, or Carbonear-Harbour Grace. Coming from Harbour Grace, having roots there, I have to say that first, no offence to anybody else in the district, of course, I say to the member opposite.

Mr. Speaker, Order 13, second reading of a bill, An Act To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists. (Bill 43)

MR. SPEAKER: Could the Government House Leader read that one again, please?

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

I am sorry, Order 15. I apologize, Mr. Speaker. Order 15, second reading of a bill, An Act To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists. (Bill 43)

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of a bill, An Act To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists. (Bill 43)

It is moved and seconded that Bill 43 entitled, An Act To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists." (Bill 43)

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

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

In view of the comments made earlier today about the use of lecterns, I believe that I was the culprit who was using a lectern today, so I wish to assure all members that I will not use a lectern this afternoon. I will just simply build up my books here to aid me -

AN HON. MEMBER: To lectern height.

MR. T. MARSHALL: To lectern height, yes.

Mr. Speaker, government relies on input from all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to develop policies and programs that serve the best interests of this Province. Listening to stakeholders allows government to capture not only the views of those most affected, but also a broad range of relevant knowledge and expertise. People of this Province want greater participation in government decision making, and they are contributing more and more to public policy development, and we welcome that, Mr. Speaker. I am sure all members of the House of Assembly welcome that. In turn, government is ensuring public access to the decision making process, through strong transparency mechanisms and consultation. There is a growing expectation throughout the Province, and indeed the whole country, that government operations and government decision making should be open, should be transparent, and should be accountable to the public.

Our government, Mr. Speaker, is building a foundation of access, of openness and accountability through legislation and good governing practices. As part of this process, we are introducing legislation that will regulate the activity of lobbyists in this Province. Mr. Speaker, while free and open access to government is an important right of citizenship, and must not be impeded, government decision makers and the people of this Province should have information on who is attempting to influence public policy in this Province, and how they are attempting to do it. All participants in the decision making process should have a clear idea of what constitutes acceptable and appropriate lobbying practices, if a government is proposing, first of all, to establish the registry of paid lobbyists, and secondly, a Code of Conduct that defines acceptable and appropriate lobbying practices.

This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce Bill 43, An Act To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists. This legislation will raise the bar for open and transparent government and will help clarify what is appropriate conduct for lobbyists as they provide input to the public decision making process.

Mr. Speaker, in preparing for this legislation, our government has done a great deal of research. We have drawn on the experience of other jurisdictions. We have examined lobbyist registration, laws that were implemented by other provinces and by the federal government in Ottawa. Additionally, we took the research process a step further. We asked the people of this Province for their views on lobbying and lobbyists. The Department of Justice developed a discussion document, that outlined what we saw as a key element of lobbyist legislation. It was posted on the department's website and it was advertised in the Province's major newspapers. It was mailed directly to more than 100 organizations, including volunteer groups and industry associations for review and for their input. In response, government received numerous calls and twenty-five written submissions from advocacy groups, representing groups throughout the whole Province, representing women in the professions, industries, the environment and communities, to name only a few.

At this point, I would like to recognize all those who took the time to provide us with that input. We needed it to help refine our thinking. The information and the prospectus that were brought forward were very valuable in helping us develop legislation that not only leads lobbyist legislation in the country but also fits our Province. We have heard from stakeholders, and what we have heard from them reflects our Province's great diversity of interest and concerns. The submission brought forward public policy analysis, caution and practical advice on implementation.

Mr. Speaker, four key themes emerged during this consultation process. First of all, most respondents felt that lobbying is a good and useful tool in our democratic process. However, some did draw distinction between those who lobby for a not-for-profit organization or those who lobby on social issues, and on the other hand those who are paid to lobby for and on behalf of a commercial or for-profit enterprise. Many felt that it was the latter only that should be regulated, and not the former.

Many respondents were concerned that registration would impose too great an administrative burden or a financial burden, especially on non-profit organizations operating on shoestring budgets. They cautioned government to design the process and the fee structure so as not to create barriers based on cost.

Finally, all respondents agreed that transparency around lobbying is good government policy, it is a good public policy goal. Information should be publicly available on individuals or groups who seek to influence how government collects and spends public money or how government changes the laws under which we live.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we know what lobbying is if we are going to register those who lobby. Lobbying, when it is done appropriately, is certainly a legitimate part of the democratic process. It allows individuals and groups to educate government about their issues and their objectives and thus influences public policy and program decisions. Volunteers with not-for-profit or grassroots organizations sometimes undertake lobbying. Lobbying is also conducted by paid professionals, when organizations, whether commercial or non profit, hire them to bring a particular message to key decision makers. It is the latter activity, Mr. Speaker, paid lobbying, that government is seeking to regulate here today. Open and transparent registering and recording of paid lobbying activities will ensure that public-office holders and the general public know who is working to influence government decision making and the public policy decisions that they are attempting to influence.

The legislation before this House defines lobbying to mean communicating for pay or benefit with a public-office holder in an attempt to influence public policy or program decisions. Decisions that might be subject to lobbying include both general issues, for example, the content of legislation or criteria for applying policies or accessing program, as well as specific circumstances, for example, the awarding of a grant or funding contribution or a contract.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to emphasize, and I want to do that today, that not all communications with a public-office holder will be subject to this new law. For example, when the government issues written requests for comments on an issue, the response would not be considered to be lobbying. Responses to the consultation on lobbyist legislation, say, would not be considered lobbying. Other examples of communication with a public-office holder that would not require registration or reporting under the Lobbying Registration Act includes, for example, submissions to a Member of the House of Assembly in their official capacity as MHAs by or on behalf of their constituents, also, on the record, submissions to a committee of the House of Assembly or to any other body with jurisdiction under a given piece of legislation.

Another example would be communication by an unpaid member of a voluntary organization. This is, of course, is very important, communication by an unpaid member of a voluntary organization about an issue of concern to that organization. I would think that something like the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women would be covered by that. As my hon. colleagues would see, Mr. Speaker, many types of communication with government decision makers will not be subject to the Lobbyist Registration Act. These communications are completely transparent and their purpose is already understood by all.

Who, Mr. Speaker, will the legislation directly affect? It will affect paid lobbyists. It will affect public-office holders. To influence government decisions, lobbying has to reach the decision makers. So that the role of everyone involved in the process of lobbying is completely clear, our legislation speaks also of the government decision-makers who lobbyists may contact in order to influence decisions. The act refers to public-office holders which is defined to include employees of government departments and agencies and persons appointed to various positions by Cabinet and by ministers, as well as by Members of the House of Assembly. For the purposes of the act, the term public-office holder will include members, officers and servants of the House of Assembly and their staff; officers, directors and employees of government departments, agencies, boards and commissions; and persons appointed by the Cabinet, or a minister, to any office or body; and officers or employees of the government; or employees of officers or ministers not otherwise specified. It is important to note that it would not include elected municipal representatives and council employees, judges, justices of the peace, or members of an administrative tribunal exercising a judicial function. The Information and Privacy Commission appointed today would not be a public-office holder, nor the Citizens' Representative, nor the Child and Youth Advocate.

Mr. Speaker, these are individuals whose jobs it is to hear the concerns and issues brought forward by members of the public. Their contact is governed by other legislation. Government has no desire to impose administrative burdens on their daily contact with the public or to change or to complicate the relationship with the public in any way.

At the other end of the process however, Mr. Speaker, who is there? There is a wide variety of individuals and organizations engaged in lobbying. They may also be referred to as advocates, public affairs advisors, or government relations consultants. These individuals and organizations do have a right to lobby or to employ a person or agency to lobby on their behalf. Government's intention is not to hinder their efforts or impede their access to decision makers, but to help prevent unfairness or undue influence on government decision makers based on an organization's ability to pay for representation. This bill is aimed at regulating paid lobbyists, that is those who receive remuneration or other benefits to carry out lobbying activities.

Mr. Speaker, the Lobbyist Registration Act also provides clear definitions of types of paid lobbyist, which should prevent confusion and misunderstanding about who is affected by the legislation. A consultant lobbyist is someone who is paid to lobby on behalf of their client. Examples of this would include lawyers, accountants, and public relations specialists. The key, however, is that they contact government on a client's behalf.

An in-house lobbyist, on the other hand, would be an employee whose lobbying activity, either individually or countered with other employees, amounts to 20 per cent of one staff member's work time over a three-month period. This would apply to individual employees, as well as a collective of employees conducting lobbying activities. The key is that an employee or collective of employees must spend at least 20 per cent of his or her time engaged in lobbying activities directed towards government. Mr. Speaker, it is important to emphasize, again, that no legislation in Canada attempts to regulate unpaid lobbyists and unpaid lobbying activities, neither will this legislation.

The proposed legislation does not regulate the activities of unpaid volunteers. It can continue to lobby for their chosen causes on a voluntary basis, as they have always done. This legislation will not pose any administrative or cost burden on them. Of course, individuals who make representations on their own behalf will not be affected. It is very important that we understand that as a result of this legislation, nothing about a constituent's relationship with his or her MHA will change. Citizens will not have to register as lobbyists in order to bring their concerns forward to their elected representatives.

Mr. Speaker, this now gets us to the area of who would not be considered a lobbyist under our legislation. Generally, public office holders acting in an official capacity would not be required to register as lobbyists. Some examples of those who would not be considered lobbyists would be members, officers or servants of this House of Assembly and their staff; employees in the public service of the Province, members, officers and employees of a municipal council; officers, directors of employees of organizations established or funded by government to provide information or advice on matters of public policy; the Provincial Advisory Council to the Status of Women, other women's groups, other volunteer groups, would be exempted under that definition. Also, Mr. Speaker, unpaid volunteers representing a voluntary organization about an issue or concern to that organization.

Mr. Speaker, government intends that lobbyist legislation would work with other statutory instruments, such as the House of Assembly Act, the Conflict of Interest Act and the new Transparency and Accountability Act to ensure openness and accountability in the public decision-making process. Registration of paid lobbyists would provide a public record of who is seeking to influence public policy and by what means. It will give concrete form to the principles of openness and transparency and help respond to public concern that paid lobbyists might receive preferential treatment. I know how concerned the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development is concerned about this, and this legislation will help her perform her role and do her job in the assurance that the people of this Province will know who is attempting to influence her and how they are attempting to do it.

A lobbyist covered by the legislation would be required to disclose certain information within specified time limits. Consulting lobbyists will be required to file on their own behalf, and a senior officer of an employer organization would be required to file on behalf of an in-house lobbyist. This is important, Mr. Speaker. Lobbyists will have to disclose who they are, who and what they are lobbying for, who in government they expect to lobby and by what means. They would also have to disclose the sources of funding for their lobbying activity, including any government funding their client has received or expects to receive. Lobbying is still going to be permitted, Mr. Speaker, but we are going to bring it out of the shadows so that the people of this Province will know what is going on.

Registration information will be recorded in a public registry and that registry will be simple, it will be efficient, it will be accessible to the public and it will be self funding. I strongly emphasis that government will not limit access by imposing financial burdens. Not-for-profit organizations operating under limited budgets will pay less than profit making organizations, which typically have greater budget flexibility. In some cases the fee will be waived altogether. Public access to the registry will, of course, be free.

Government envisions that, similar to legislation in some other jurisdictions, our Lobbyists Registration Act would prohibit certain lobbying activities as inappropriate. This will include lobbying without proper registration and the use of confidential information by former public officer holders who engage in lobbying activities after they leave office.

A twelve month cooling-off period will apply to Cabinet ministers and to deputy ministers, and also to members of this House and Officers of the House of Assembly who become lobbyists after leaving office or employment. Government acknowledges that there is a fine balance between allowing former public office holders to make a living and preventing them from taking undue advantage of their former position. However, we also believe that the balance must tip, if it tips at all, in favour of the public and not the private interest.

Mr. Speaker, to give the legislation teeth, the Lobbyists Registration Act defines offences and establishes fines for noncompliance. Noncompliance for submitting false or misleading information, or for placing a public office holder in a position of conflict of interest. The act will impose penalties for unregistered or inappropriate lobbying. There will be fines of up to $25,000 for the first offence and up to $100,000 for a second or subsequent offence, as well as forfeiture to the Crown of proceeds from inappropriate lobbying.

Offences under the act will include: failure to make a timely return; failure to provide the information required; failure to provide the registry with new changes, new information or requests of clarifications; making a false or misleading statement and knowingly placing a public office holder in a position of real or potential conflict of interest. As all members know, behaviour constituting a conflict of interest is defined for non-elected public office holders in the Conflict of Interest Act, 1995, and for members of this House and Cabinet ministers, it is set out in Part II of the House of Assembly Act.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker, expect and deserve government that they trust and they respect. All participants in the public decision-making process have an obligation to fulfil those expectations and to uphold the principles of accessability, openness and accountability in order to foster confidence and encourage participation in the democratic process.

Government will accordingly establish a Code of Conduct that sets the standard of behaviour for lobbyists. The code will prescribe things that lobbyists should not do, as well as establish positive duties. As well, it will, as far as possible, be consistent with similar codes that are now in place federally and also in Quebec. As a result, Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province will not only be well-informed on who is lobbying government and on what issues but will also be in a position to judge lobbyists on the basis of how they comply with the code.

Codes of Conduct have long been applied in this and other jurisdictions to guide the behaviour of persons occupying the positions of responsibility and positions of trust. Other jurisdictions, particularly the federal government, have adopted a Code of Conduct for lobbyists as well.

Our act provides for a Code of Conduct to accompany the act and to complement its registration requirements. Monitoring of adherence to the code will be the responsibility of a Commission of Lobbyists appointed under the act, who will have the authority to investigate violations of the act and the code and the regulations made under the act and to prohibit or cancel registrations.

The power of investigation would be triggered by an alleged violation noted by either the Commissioner or a complainant and supported on reasonable grounds. The Commissioner would investigate the (inaudible) report and if appropriate, forward it to the police.

In the event of serious or repeated breaches in the obligations imposed by the act or the code or the regulations, the Commissioner would have the authority to prohibit or cancel registration of the lobbyist and the exercise of such power would effectively bar the lobbyist from carrying on lobbyists activities for the period of the prohibition or cancellation, which cannot exceed one year in duration. There will, of course, be a Right of Appeal by the affected lobbyist to the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador expect openness, transparency and accountability in the public decision-making process. We are making sure the law reflects this. This bill will fulfil government's commitment to introduce legislation requiring the registration of paid lobbyists.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill today and I ask my hon. colleagues to support this important step forwarding and ensuring access, openness and accountability.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words in second reading regarding Bill 43.

This member will certainly be supportive of the general principles outlined in Bill 43. Not a problem! We are finally coming of age, I guess. Several places in Canada has it, the federal government has it, Ontario has it, BC has a registry, and it is nice to see that we are finally going to join those and set up our own registry, and we are also going to have a Code of Ethics, as the minister says, which governs the activities of the lobbyists. They go hand in hand. There is not much point in saying that someone has to register as a lobbyist in this Province, which basically says, yes, I am a lobbyist, without saying what the Code of Ethics is that is going to govern these people. That would be saying: As long as you tell us who you are, you have free rein to do what you wish. The code of ethics is a very essential hand in glove piece of this.

I notice it doesn't say in here when we can expect to have the details of the Code of Ethics. It says that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council will draft a Code of Ethics, but it doesn't give any time lines in here, to my knowledge, as to when that Code of Ethics will be ready to be proclaimed by way of regulation or whatever to go along with it. It is fine to be open and transparent and put this on the books - this is a great move, it is a good move - but I encourage the minister to make sure that we put the essential piece in place which is the Code of Ethics. How do we ever get to the penalty sections or offence sections if we don't have the guidelines by which someone did or did not breach this act. It is fine to say, we are going to have an act, you must register, you must abide by a Code of Ethics, if you don't you will be charged, you can face penalties of up to $25,000, or a second offence of $100,000, and yet we are not saying what the Code of Ethics is. It is very essential that we act in a timely fashion and get the Code of Ethics that is going to be the companion piece, a very essential piece of this legislation.

It is comprehensive, it is detailed. I compliment the minister for the detail here actually. It is saying where you want to go and it is the proper direction to go in. There is some uncertainty in some area. For example, some people have difficulty understanding the distinction between being a lobbyist and undue influence, or influence peddling, shall we say. Influence peddling, itself, is already an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada. So, when someone comes to a government minister, for example, and tries to influence him, is it influence peddling or is it lobbying? That distinction will still remain between what we end up with as a law and what is under the Criminal Code. I am not quite certain sure how the Code of Ethics is going to be defined in such a way that we do not encroach upon the criminal law standards of influenced peddling versus an acknowledged, sanctioned activity of lobbying somebody. So, we have to be very clear and distinct when we do come up with our Code of Ethics that we do not put our foot into the realm of criminal law which we, as a Province, have no right to do.

I just say that as a word of caution, I guess. It is great stuff but let's make sure we do it right and do not end up with an act that is deemed to be unconstitutional and not useable in any case. The sooner we get the Code of Ethics, the better, in the sense of allowing people who want to engage in the legitimate activity of lobbying to be able to get on with it and get started on to what the rules are going to be.

I am sure there are people out there now who already make a living as paid lobbyists, and they know this is coming because the minister did consultations, as he says, and got some feedback. From what I am hearing from these people, they are saying: Fine, if you are going to set up a new set of rules and a new regime as to how our activities will be governed, get on with it, tell me what it is, so that I do not go out and make any mistakes in the meantime and subsequently be caught. Because, it is very important, if the minister would note, under section 5.(3) of the act, it says there that a consultant lobbyist who is performing a service, when this act comes into place, they must go get registered right away within ten days. So, if I am already a lobbyist on a file for a client dealing with a minister of the Crown and this act becomes law, say, on December 15, now where do I stand? I know that I have to go and register within ten days of December 15, that I am a lobbyist and I am engaged on this file with this client doing this activity, very specific details, but I do not know the rules that I have to act by, because that comes under the second piece of this, the Code of Ethics. So, it is a bit unfair to anyone engaged in a current activity to say: You have to register with us. You are going to be subject to this new law, but we cannot tell you what the criteria is yet on a Code of Ethics.

It is almost like putting the cart before the horse again in the sense that - and we have seen this in this session numerous times, that we are going to do that by regulation. We will do it by regulation, but we cannot tell you what the regulations are. It is like this Code of Ethics, and I am sure lobbyist out there are worried. If I am lobbyist, I want to know, come December 15. I do not want the Minister of Justice cracking down on me and saying that I broke the law, and I didn't even know what the code was because you do not have it done.

That is a concern, Minister. It is another question of, does it go far enough? Because there are all kinds of activities. How do you slate them? How do you distinguish between lobbying or influence peddling? - and, there are ways to get around the Lobbyist Act. For example, what if someone is a relative of the Premier? What if someone is a relative of a minister - a brother or a sister or a cousin or whatever - and they are not a paid lobbyist but you put them on a board; for example, Newfoundland Hydro? It might be a very good associate of yours, or whatever, and they are not paid lobbyists but yet you get the benefit of their influence, or they get the benefit of their influence, because they get appointed to a government board or agency. So, there is still that issue of, does it go far enough?

Again, as I say, I applaud government for going this far and making the first step, but there is no question that down the road this whole realm of openness and accountability is going to lead into that area as well of: How do we get past the board and agency appointment piece to make it truly open and to make it truly accountable?

Another issue with accountability here, I refer the minister to, I believe it is section 7 of the act, whereby it says that there will be a registrar appointed and this person will be a registrar of lobbyist who will see that everything in this act is carried out. Guess who appoints him? The Lieutenant-Governor in Council, again.

How come he is not appointed by the Public Service Commission? How come he is not appointed by the House of Assembly, if we are looking at somebody who is truly open and accountable and fair and independent? Why would we have the appointee being appointed by the Premier and the Cabinet again if we are truly open and accountable?

It seems that you cannot have it both ways. I hold myself out, as a government, to say that I am open and I am accountable, and when somebody puts these questions forward: Why are you not being truly fully open and accountable and independent?, the other side says: Well, there is no need of that because we did not do it over there and we did not do it somewhere else, so therefore we do not need to do it here.

The Minister of Government Services said earlier, in response to a question on another piece of legislation we dealt with: Well, the reason we do not have to get the purchasing agency CEO or COO appointed by the House is because we did not do that for someone else.

Well, maybe we did not, but the fact that we did not doesn't justify why the government is not going to take the full step, go the full way, and be truly independent.

We have the Citizens' Rep, who is independent by the House; we have the Privacy Commissioner today, a resolution of the House; we have the Ombudsman, the Citizens' Rep is by the House; the Child Advocate is by the House resolution. Why wouldn't we? The fact that we did not do it in other things does not justify why government will not go the full step, make it justifiable now, and have the Public Service Commission or the House pick somebody to be the - it can be upon recommendation of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council; so it should be. I do not have a problem with the Lieutenant-Governor in Council coming up with a list of names and saying: Public Service Commission, here is bunch of names who we think would be fit people. Now, you make a choice. They are all suitable in our eyes. You pick whomever you think is best.

That is true openness and that is true accountability. As long as someone says, trust me, we want to be open, we want to be accountable, but we want to make the final decision as to what the Code of Ethics will be in our good time, we want to make the decision as to who that registrar will be in our good time, that still leaves that window. That still leaves the most important piece of it all - for example, control. That is what accountability and openness is all about, being prepared to relinquish the control. It is fine to say that in the future we are setting up this board and whatever, but you cannot hold on to that control of who we put there, and we will keep control of the person who runs that. That is not true openness and accountability.

We have seen that here today in three pieces of legislation that we have had. The government is not going the full gamut to make it truly open, to make it truly accountable, because government wants to preserve unto themselves; whether it is the COO of the Purchasing Agency; whether it is under the Request for Proposals incident, under the Public Tender Act; whether it is here, the appointment of the registrar of the lobbyists, the government is saying: We are the good guys. We are totally open, we are totally transparent, but we want to make these decisions. We will not leave the appointment of the so-called independent persons to an independent body.

Therein lies the flaw. Therein lies the flaw with this openness and accountability piece that we have seen here from this government so far.

The question, too, of the Conflict of Interest legislation is referenced by the minister here today and, in fact, is referenced in this lobbyist bill. A lot of people are going to ask serious questions about that. Who does it comply with or don't comply with? In all fairness, there is only one person in this House who has not complied, to my knowledge, with the Conflict of Interest legislation that we have in this Province already, and that is the Premier. We cannot talk out of one side of our mouth about doing such and such, and on the other side of our mouth we are actually in breach or not complying with what the spirit and intent was of the legislation that we already have. That is where people question things. People question one's sincerity in where you want to go, depending on how you try to get there. That is where people question your sincerity.

The other question I asked the minister, and this was brought to my attention by one of the groups in the Province - I think you have handled it by virtue of the definition section, and I refer you specifically to page 9 section 4 where you say who the act does not apply to. Perhaps the minister can deal with this, and, I am sure, the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, as well, in her capacity as Minister Responsible for the Status of Women. This issue was brought to my attention by some of the executive members of the Status of Women's Council for the Province who wondered whether this legislation would, in fact, impact them?

Those are the comments I have at this point. The most important one, I would submit, is when will we see the Code of Ethics. Without the Code of Ethics, this piece of legislation, albeit it's good intentions, is going nowhere. I think if we had some undertakings or understanding or commitments, at least, from the minister, as to when he intends to take us there, that would be very much appreciated by the general public and, specifically, by the lobbyists who are going to be governing by this new law.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am rising to speak on second reading on Bill 43, An To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists.

In doing so, let me say that we certainly welcome legislation that is going to attempt to put some control on the lobbying activities toward government and towards this government, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. There have been lots of stories, some of them kind of second and third hand, of things that have gone on in the past that would curl your ears, not just your hair, in terms of lobbying of government and charging individuals to meet with ministers, for example, that kind of circumstance which I find grossly appalling. Most jurisdictions across the country have lobbying legislation, to have registration for paid lobbyists.

I accept the minister's general comments. This is to get at paid lobbyists and I agree. The people who are in the business of lobbying, that is really who they are trying to get at, or people who are hired by a corporation to do government affairs as an in-house or as a consultant. We need to know who is doing what. We need to control the hiring, for example, of senior advisors to the Minister of Health, who might be hired by a drug company the following year to pursue changes in government policy or regulations. It is the kind of the thing that we are talking about, corporations primarily, or business interests, who use their financial ability to hire people who can influence, or to hire people who expect to be able to influence, government decisions.

In terms of the principle of the bill, I have no problem, and in terms of the principle espoused by the minister, I have no problem at all. I do see, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is broad enough to catch an awful lot of things that, in a sense, as the previous speaker said, you might take for granted. Everybody knows that the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women is lobbying government to improve the position of women in society. Whether that means changing legislation, changing policy, or changing the way that government operates in certain ways, then that is to be expected. Rightfully, they are excluded, not because they are doing that though, Mr. Speaker, but because they are a publicly funded body. That is why they are excluded, because they are a publicly funded body.

What about the Alzheimer Society? Everybody knows what they are there for, too. The Autism Society, what are they there for? They are there to promote the interests of people who have those diseases, whose families need particular assistance, who are going to lobby government. They are either going to lobby government or they are going to talk to people who they are going to invite for social occasions, like members of the House of Assembly and say: Can you raise this for us in the House? We would really like this drug to be included on the formulary because it is of concern to us. Is that lobbying, Mr. Speaker? Yes, I guess it is. Lobby your member. People are told all the time: Lobby your member to get certain changes made.

That kind of informal lobbying, or even formal lobbying in the case of organizations, such as the Alzheimer Society or the Brain Injury Association or the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Lung Association, all of these organization are mostly voluntary, but they hire an executive director. Why are we putting - and I think we are - that organization through the trouble and expense and bureaucracy, filing of reports and registering every six months, checking to see who is doing what in the last three-month period, whether it was a total - and this is a detail here in the legislation. If you added up everybody's activities and you found when you added all of them altogether, there would be 20 per cent of one person's in one one-three month period, this to me is an awful lot of bureaucratic nonsense, as being imposed on voluntarily organizations that exist for the sole purpose of promoting the interests of a particular group or activity that we are not talking about here. The Alzheimer Association does not charge its members to get a meeting with the Minister of Health, or does not charge anybody to get a meeting with the Minister of Health. Everything that it does is basically in the aims and purposes of the organization and they conduct their activities with whatever assistance they can get, either from the public or private sources or fundraising or whatever.

Can we not find a way of excluding them altogether? That is what I say to the minister: Can we not find a way of excluding them altogether so that voluntary organizations that are designed as to - whether they be consumer advocates, or advocates for a particular disease group or voluntary body community group. I mean, do we want the St. John's Boys and Girls Club to be registered as lobbyists? Is that what we want? Do we want the organizations such as that to spend some of their time making sure, under paying of fines, that they are not spending 20 per cent of one person's time trying to influence government to get more money or whatever? Is that something we need to deal with?

Now, there are some exceptions spelled out in the act - the non-application of the act. We have in the collection under section 4.(1) of people who are exempted, we have "volunteer unpaid members of boards or councils." Now I do not now what boards or councils are. I do not know whether they are referring to the boards that are mentioned, or the councils that are mentioned - and these are mentioned in other sections of the legislation. It could be a school board member, for example, or it could be a member of a council - a civic council, a town council or a community council. Well, that is fine, "volunteer unpaid members of boards or councils." What about volunteer unpaid members of boards of voluntary organizations, such as the Boys and Girls Club, such as the Alzheimer's Society, such as the Kidney Foundation? Are these people going to be subjected to the act and to the kind of bureaucratic requirements that appear to be involved?

Let me say this at the outset, I have absolutely no difficulty with insisting under paying of the most stringent fines, that if somebody is in the business of lobbying government, government consultants or working for an organization that is there trying to promote a particular project with the government and trying to influence that, they surely should be registered. In fact, I will go even further. In some of the places in the act, for example where the paid lobbyists are required to disclose whether or not their fee is contingent upon getting certain results, I would go further and say that should be outlawed. There should not be: Well, if I can get the government to change this legislation I will get an extra $50,000. If I can convince the government to change the legislation I will get an extra fifty grand, or if I can get the legislation amended I will get a contingency fee. I do not think that should be permitted because that invites the kind of undue influence that we are trying to hopefully control through legislation of this nature.

So, I think we have to have, I think, a little closer look at some of the provisions here as they affect voluntary organizations. There is another group that seems to be drawn into the bureaucratic requirements. When I say that, I do not say it in a negative way, although it is obviously very negative for an organization with a small amount of money, a small amount of resources to be spending their time dealing with the regulatory aspects of filing documents, paying fees, spending their time complying, in other words, with something that is not going to - put it this way, it is not the evil or the mischief that this legislation is aimed to try to reduce. The kind of thing that a trade union would do, for example.

If the Fishermen's Union is coming in to see the Minister of Fisheries and they happen to be using paid officials to do it, do we have to have a special registration of that? We know that the Fishermen's Union is going to be lobbying government on behalf of fishery workers, on behalf of fishermen, on behalf of plant workers. They are going to be trying to get regulations changed. They are going to be trying to influence government decisions with respect to their interests. That is their job. That is what they are elected for. That is what they serve for. That is what they are hired for. Some of them are paid and some of them are not. There is no exemption here for voluntary members of their boards. Although, to be fair, it is only the employees who are covered. So, we have a confusion there that has been pointed out, I think, to the minister or at least to the minister's representative, in dealing with the proposed registration of lobbyists.

That organization sent us along a copy of their presentation to the committee and expressed some grave concerns seeing as how most of the - although most of the activists and leadership of this particular union are unpaid, but some are. A small paid staff, including a president and a secretary treasurer. They are concerned that there will be a lot of misunderstanding about what the expectations really are. Again, are we really here trying to figure out whether or not the Fishermen's Union is doing its job or not, and who are they contacting and how many MHAs did they see? Are they constrained by the fact that they happen to run into a Member of the House of Assembly and talk about how we want to get this changed or get legislation changed, and can you give us a hand? Does that then become lobbying, what was normally the kind of interaction that you would expect between Members of the House of Assembly and people in organizations, such as the Fishermen's Union or other unions in our Province?

There is a specific exemption, for some reason, for the lobbying Members of the House of Assembly on issues affecting public sector negotiations. That is exempted, but somehow everything else is covered by the legislation. I think what the minister is saying, and if that philosophy was covered through the act, what we are trying to capture here is paid lobbyists, then let's look at paid lobbyists and follow it through and exempt voluntary organizations that may have an executive director who may be - as part of the aims of the organization - trying to influence a policy in the direction of their organization but are not lobbyists in the sense that their job is to gain access to government for a particular advantage of their client. That is the kind of thing that I am concerned about here, that we want to make sure it is the actual people who are engaged in the business of lobbying that are taken into account.

Now, we do have to have provision for in-house lobbyists because if you did not, all a company would have to do is hire somebody and say: Okay, you are our vice-president of governmental affairs. You go to town. Go do what you are going to do. We are going to pay you a lot of money and we are going to pay you a bonus if you are successful, but we want this particular contract. We want to get this contract and we want you to use your influence to get that contract. We will put you on salary and somehow or other that is going to exempt you from the lobbying legislation. Well, obviously we want to avoid that. We do have to have a provision for in-house lobbyists because you would not want to create such a large loophole and leave out the kind of things you want to cover.

I do see a problem with voluntary organizations. I see a problem with trade unions. There is even, I suppose, a potential problem with solicitor client confidentiality in some cases. Even though this may be something pretty detailed, I did notice that there was an exemption - a specific exemption - for certain types of activities which are not considered to be lobbying. I wonder if the minister can address that when he speaks, because there seems to me to be a whole provision that is excluded here in the definition of lobbying. That is found on page 9 and 10. It says: This Act does not apply to certain types of activity. This is found on page 10, section 4.(2) (b) "any oral or written submission made to a public-office holder by a person on behalf of a person, partnership or organization with respect to (i) the enforcement, interpretation or application of any Act or regulation made under any Act by that public-office holder with respect to that person, partnership or organization, or (ii) the implementation or administration of any policy, program, directive or guideline by that public-office holder with respect to that person, partnership or organization."

I realize that this may be highly technical, but it seems to me that may well be the kind of thing you would want a lobbyist for, to try and get a favourable ruling or a favourable interpretation of a particular act or policy, the implementation or administration of any policy. I want you to intervene with government to use your influence to talk to various people. Can you see if you can get me a favourable ruling or a favourable interpretation of a particular policy?

It strikes me, that seems to be one of the large areas of public activity that you would kind of think that a lobbyist might be able to actually influence by virtue of their ability to either persuade government that a certain approach should be taken, or to persuade a client that your skills and ability would be ones that could be used to their advantage.

I realize there may be some overlap here - and perhaps the minister can address this, too, because I am sure that he or his officials have thought about this - there is a whole issue of solicitor-client activity that may or may not be covered in that as well. I am wondering to what extent government has directed its mind to the kind of issues that might arise with respect to the legal profession, although I think it is clear they want to be covered because you cannot hide behind a legal designation to avoid lobbying legislation. That would simple mean that all the lobbyists would be lawyers and therefore would not be covered by the act, and I do not think that is appropriate either, but I am sure that government and the minister or his officials have thought about these things and have some answers for the House as we go through the bill.

Let me just say again, in closing, that this is an important piece of legislation. It is a progressive piece of legislation, but I think we do have to think through some of the effects that it is going to have on voluntary organizations, on advocacy and consumer groups, on people who are out there working for the good of their fellow human beings and yet are now going to be considered lobbyists and have to jump a number of bureaucratic hoops, pay a registration fee, and be lumped in with the people who are really the problem here, people who are actually charging others to conduct lobbying on their behalf for the gain of that particular corporation or interest, or who are hired specifically for that purpose or engaged in that activity on behalf of their employer, normally a private corporation.

I realize that the minister may be trying to achieve some balance here, but I am afraid that the scales are weighted awfully heavily against the voluntary sector in particular, the unions who are clearly open and transparent about their aims and purposes, and most of whose people are volunteer or elected, some of whose people are paid staff members, but whose activity, whether they be talking to Members of the House of Assembly - should somebody who happens to be the president of one of the trade unions who comes in and talks or meets somebody at a social gathering and says to the minister: Look, I think you should be doing this or that, or something else - should they have to consider their activity as lobbying?

I realize there is a 20 per cent rule in effect here, but should there be a report filed to say that I talked to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation at such-and-such a gathering and I want to report that as part of my lobbying activities for the last three months? There is a fair bit of information that will be flowing in something like that. It may not be that is the kind of information that government needs to collect or should be collecting about organizations and what they do particularly in the voluntary sector.

I would ask the minister to comment on some of these questions when he closes debate on this. I know there will be opportunity for further discussion in Committee, but sometimes these things come pretty fast without a lot of opportunity for thinking about them before they are upon us for third reading, particularly in the Assembly that we have with a very short sitting. If the minister can comment on some of those now, I would certainly appreciate it.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now, he closes the debate at second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

I certainly appreciate the comments that have been made today by the Opposition House Leader and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, that have been most insightful. I would like to deal first of all with the comments about the Status of Women.

The matter that was raised by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile concerning the Status of Women, I think I dealt with that twice during my speech. I know that all members here would love for me to give that speech again, but I am not going to do it. I will refer the hon. member to section 4.(1)(p). It says, "(1) This Act does not apply to the following persons when acting in their official capacity:.." - and subsection (p) does deal with "...officers, directors or employees of organizations established or funded by government to provide information or advice on matters of public policy...".

The Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women will certainly be covered, I believe, by that section. We did have communication from the Advisory Council and we did correspond with them and brought that to their attention. Most other women's advocacy groups throughout the Province, similarly, would be considered lobbyists but would not have to register a report.

With respect to the Code of Conduct, Mr. Speaker, there are Codes of Conduct, I think, in the Quebec legislation. This act provides for a mandatory Code of Conduct for lobbyists. The code will establish standards of conduct, appropriate conduct for all lobbyists who communicate with provincial public-office holders, but it will be the responsibility of the Commissioner of Lobbyists. I think my hon. friend referred to the registrar of lobbyists, and there will be a registrar of lobbyists who will maintain the public registry in which lobbyist must register the information required under the act, but it is a Commissioner of Lobbyists who will develop a Code of Conduct and who will enforce not only the act but the code and the regulations.

I believe that the lobbyist Code of Conduct is to ensure that lobbying is done ethically and with the highest of standards, with a view to maintaining and enhancing public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of government decision-making

The Code of Conduct will deal with such principles as integrity and honesty; the fact that there should be openness and professionalism, and there will be rules dealing with transparency and identity of purpose; the fact that lobbyist will have to provide accurate information; they shall not divulge confidential information; they shall not use confidential or other insider information; they will not represent conflicting or competing interests without informed consent; they will have to disclose to public-officer holders; they will have to advise public-officer holders that they have informed their client of any actual potential or apparent conflict of interest, and they must not use improper influence.

I think the Code of Conduct will deal with items like this, and I will be very happy to provide the Opposition House Leader with a copy of this, but the code that will be applicable will be a code that will come down from the Commissioner of Lobbyists.

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that the purpose of this legislation is not to prevent people from lobbying government officials. Indeed lobbying, as I said in my remarks earlier today, is an extremely important part of the public decision-making process. We welcome lobbying, but what we want to ensure is what The Telegram said, that it is important to get this out of the shadows. It is important that the people of this Province know who is attempting to lobby the decision-makers in this government. The public-office holders have to know who is doing the lobbying, but it is important the people of the Province know what the heck is going on. That is very important, and that is the purpose of this legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier today, the legislation does not regulate the activities of unpaid volunteers. They can continue to lobby for their chosen causes on a voluntary basis, as they always have done. We are not attempting to stop people, individuals, from contacting public-office holders on behalf of themselves.

With respect to some of the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Quidi Vidi, I think that, whenever I have a piece of legislation to go to this House, I am going to make sure that I bring it to the hon. member and discuss it with him beforehand, because he did present a lot of very useful and insightful ideas here.

It is important to note that we are trying to get at paid lobbyists, but any in-house lobbyists - and you mentioned executive directors of certain volunteer organizations. An in-house lobbyist, an employee who is lobbying activity either individually or countered with other individuals, amounts to 20 per cent of one staff member's work time over a three-month period. I really think that will exclude people who are covered, people that the hon. member was referring to.

I think that volunteers are protected under this legislation. The legislation is not meant to attack unpaid volunteers. We are meant to get at the paid lobbyists and we want to make sure, as I said, once again, that there will be a Code of Conduct to make sure that lobbying in this Province is done appropriately and, most importantly, that the people of this Province know what is going on, know who the lobbyists are, know who is paying them, know who is being lobbied and what they are lobbying for.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 43, An Act To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists, 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 Provide For the Registration Of Lobbyists. (Bill 43).

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Later.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. ( Bill 43)

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

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

It now being about 5:20 p.m., as opposed to starting another piece of legislation or picking up in Committee, I may just propose that we have our supper recess and return at 7 o'clock. for the remainder of the parliamentary day.

MR. SPEAKER: This House is now in recess until 7 o'clock, later in the day.

[The remainder of today's sitting will be found in Hansard 57A.]

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Order 11, second reading of a bill, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law. (Bill 59)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 59, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law." (Bill 59)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is a pleasure for me to rise to speak to this legislation. The purpose of the legislation is set out in the Explanatory Notes. It says, "The purpose of this Bill is to bring before the House of Assembly matters in the statute law that require legislative correction as a result of amendments or enactments made in previous sessions. The amendments contained in this Bill have been brought to the attention of the Minister of Justice and are technical amendments not involving matters of policy. Each amendment is explained by reference to the clauses of the Bill by which it is proposed."

Mr. Speaker, I understand that this is common practice, that a bill such as this comes before the House to correct technical errors in legislation. I believe the hon. Government House Leader spoke about one of the provisions of this act some time ago, when he was speaking in another debate. I think his concern was with section 33 of the act, which refers to subsection 14(2) of the Statutes and Subordinate Legislation Act. This act will amend that legislation and, in subsection 2 of section 33, delete or repeal section 16 of the act.

I understand that section dealt with the tabling in this House of subordinate legislation. The clause would repeal section 16 to reflect the discontinuation of the practice of tabling regulations of the House of Assembly. I understand the Government House Leader had some trouble with that, Mr. Speaker. I am also advised that the tabling of these regulations under that legislation has not been done since the early 1990s. I assume, therefore, that the hon. Government House Leader - I am sorry, the Opposition House Leader - in the time that he was Minister of Justice in this House, did not, on any occasion, table any of these regulations in this House, so I do not know why he raised it.

I understand that the regulations are, in fact, placed on the Queen's Printer Web site. I understand they are published in the Newfoundland and Labrador Gazette, and I understand further that they are on the Web site of this House of Assembly, under the Statutes and Regulations portion. Certainly, anybody who needs access to these regulations can have them, and can have them free of charge.

Accordingly, I would urge all members to ensure that this legislation is speedily passed. I look forward to the comments and thoughts of all members of the House.

Thank you.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I would confirm the minister's comments. I have indeed spoken to the legislative draftsmen, in that this change to section 16 will only put into statute now what was a discontinuance of the practice of actually tabling the regulations.

We would certainly concur, these are technical amendments and not policy-driven initiatives that we are dealing with here. We certainly have no difficulty with this piece of legislation.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to say a few words on Bill 59, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law.

There are a number of changes that are being made here. I just want to make a comment on the general notion of this bill coming forward. These bills come forward on a fairly regular basis in our Legislature. One of the reasons that they do, Mr. Speaker, is that the legislative process in our Legislature, in my view, is inadequate in that we tend to rush through a lot of legislation without a lot of clarification and without a lot of opportunity to study it in Committees.

We have seen in the last week or two, in fact, legislation coming into this House one day and expected to be passed the next. Members are being urged to co-operate, et cetera, to have legislation passed. One of the consequences of that is that there are a fair number of anomalies and errors that become part of our law and then end up having to be changed by this type of legislation here.

We have thirty-nine sections to this act, dealing with legislation going back several years. It is a reflection of the fact that we do not sit for very long periods of time. The fall - it looks like some sixteen, or thereabouts, sitting days. This is not the fault of the current government. This has been the practice for a number of years.

I think there has been some talk - I know the Premier is here - about having family-friendly hours of the House of Assembly. He was not here until 1 o'clock in the morning, I say to the Premier, Thursday night, when the family-friendly hours were going on until 1:00 a.m., or earlier last week.

AN HON. MEMBER: You had to go home and wake your four-year-old up to have a conversation.

MR. HARRIS: According to the Leader of the Opposition, I had to go home at 1 o'clock and wake up my four-year-old to have some quality time.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) say that to him?

MR. HARRIS: Pardon?

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) say that to him on the way out?

MR. HARRIS: Said to Roger? I did, yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is not necessarily true (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: We joke about some of these things, Mr. Speaker, but the reality is that, if we are going to have a proper Legislative Assembly with a role for individual MHAs on both sides of the House - there are comments being made over here by the Official Opposition that members opposite do not see the legislation before it comes to the House. I do not know how they can. Sometimes it is never printed until very shortly before it gets here, and we are expected to pass it. The members opposite may have heard of the principle in caucus, but the legislation itself is what becomes the law.

I just want to make these comments, and urge that we consider some reforms to the sitting of the House and use of our Committee structure so that we can start perhaps sitting earlier in the fall, have legislation earlier, have opportunities for committees to look at the legislation, have more deliberative debate in this House, where people have an opportunity to make speeches and make points, and we do not end up in the situations like we have been in the last couple of days, trying to analyze legislation, trying to look out for our obligations, as members of the House, on very short notice, getting involved sometimes in debates that are unnecessary because we haven't had the opportunity of full explanations from ministers or ministers' officials. It is all very well to say - and I am sure the Government House Leader will say that he offered, some time way back when, an opportunity for any technical briefings on legislation. That is all very well, Mr. Speaker, but if you have not seen the legislation, you do not know what is in it. You do not even know if you need a technical briefing.

What you see in other Legislatures, including Ottawa, which is obviously a much more elaborate system, you have legislation in committees. Committees can hear from people, can hear from officials, can propose amendments in committee, and have a better opportunity to find these errors along the way so we have better legislation. Not only better legislation that there are no errors in it, but better legislation in that sometimes - and we have had in committee structures here in the past, seven or eight years ago, where actually legislation was clearly improved by the committee process when members on both sides of the House have had an opportunity to analyze and consider the matter under review and have come up with better ways of doing things or made improvements to statutes before they got to the floor.

I would urge the government members, because they are the ones who control the agenda here, to consider that for the next round of legislation. Start the House of Assembly a little earlier in the fall or in the spring, and if there is legislation to be passed, that we have a better opportunity to consider it at a more - I do not mean leisurely pace, Mr. Speaker. There is a difference between a leisurely pace and sitting until 1:00 in the morning just for the sake of getting legislation passed in about twelve government business days in the fall session of the House. It is not fair to members of the Legislature. It is not fair to their families and it is certainly not fair to the people who elected us, Mr. Speaker, who will expect us to do a proper job of analyzing and improving and considering legislation before it is passed.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I do not have any problem with the legislation before the House today.

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

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

I appreciate my colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, giving me an opportunity just to respond to the comments made by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, with respect to the House opening.

I do not necessarily disagree with some of the comments that the member has made. I think we have talked about, publicly in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, that once this session is over we would look at a new model or a pilot model for the House potentially opening up earlier in the day; like potentially in the morning, for example. That may provide an opportunity for a little longer sitting day but starting earlier and finishing around the same time. So, I do want to say to the member, and to members opposite who have had a little bit of fun, to be honest with you, Mr. Speaker, at our expense, and so be it, in terms of the notion of introducing a family friendly sitting of the House. I do want to say to members that we are very serious about looking at that notion. We have not been able to do it, this is only the second sitting since this government was elected, but it certainly is our intention to look at that notion. I want to, for the record, both publicly and otherwise, just indicate to members that that is certainly an intention of government, to look at that to see if there is a better way in order to move the business of the House along and a better way - at a better time of the day, I guess is the best way to put it, Mr. Speaker.

With that I will sit down and let my colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, conclude debate at second reading on this particular bill.

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

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

(Inaudible) lobbyists legislation bill. I thank the Opposition House Leader and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi for their comments. I am delighted this legislation is now passed.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 59, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law, 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 Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law. (Bill 59)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Later today.

MR. SPEAKER: Later in the day.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 59)

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

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

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain matters with a variety of pieces of legislation that are at the Committee stage right now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair so the House can resolve itself into 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 Committee of the Whole on a certain number of 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 (Mr. Fitzgerald): The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Order 6, Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 63)

CHAIR: Bill 63, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to speak for just a few moments to explain this particular bill. This bill has been brought in to produce and provide equity among different public service collective bargaining unions or associations or organizations in our Province.

At present, the President of NAPE and the Secretary-Treasurer of NAPE and the President of the NLTA serving their terms as leaders of their respective unions, can use that service toward their pensionable service. The Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union cannot use their service as President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union - to be able to use those years as pensionable service.

There is a current provision now where they can buy it back but they would buy it back currently now at the level they were as a nurse prior to this higher increase. We have gone back in the history of this and the previous people in this position, right back in the 1980s, have availed of that service and this bill would be of no benefit to anybody, except the current President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union. We think it is fair -

MR. E. BYRNE: And the ones coming after.

MR. SULLIVAN: And the ones following, the person who is there now.

Being in a profession that is a female dominated profession at present, I think it is only fair to - and it has surfaced as an equity and rights issue. It would be a disservice to not permit, in a female dominated profession, to avail of opportunities that the NLTA have had over the years. I remember one president who was a female, that I can recollect in the last twenty or thirty years - I might be wrong beyond that, but one I recollect - who sat in this House, and the President of NAPE has been male dominated over a number of years and there is no benefit to anybody previously.

The very government last year, when they were in power, passed this through Cabinet. They were ready to bring it to the House, exactly the same thing, no benefits to anybody else. Not to do it would be denying a benefit to nurses who want to take on the leadership of their union and to be able to avail of this.

So, I want to indicate that I think it is appropriate. It is full actuarial cost. There is no cost to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador on premiums. The premiums are going to be paid by the individual concerned, and what relationship their union had in putting funding into their retirement is strictly between the union and the individual, or individuals there. The only cost to government that could be a cost at present, is that under the current arrangement now - I would assume the nurses' union president is a higher level than being a nurse prior to that, but your best five years counts. I know the current income, and it is there eight years in the position, which means they have maxed out that now anyway. As it goes on, it can only be a reduced cost to government and the full actuarial cost will be picked up by the recipients in those respective positions. I think it is fair. It is equitable. It puts the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union on an equal footing with the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association and with the Newfoundland Association of Public and Private Employees. It is fair. It is equitable. It should be done. There is no predecessor in this position who is affected in any way. In fact, anybody there beforehand has availed of the opportunities now and there is no benefit to proceed. That was the work informed to me by my officials, and the prior government the same situation has not existed. I would ask that this be expeditiously moved through in an opportunity to allow them to participate on the same footing as members of other public sector unions or associations in our Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was in the process of drafting an amendment here. I had it drafted once and misplaced my paper, actually. So, I trust my writing will be legible. I understand the Leader of the NDP had some comments to make as well in this regard. So, perhaps in fairness to - and allow me an opportunity to get the amendment properly drafted, I will sit down and allow the Leader of the NDP to speak and I will be back shortly.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would be happy to make my remarks now while the Opposition House Leader is drafting his amendment, or redrafting it.

This is something that we did discuss the other night. The Minister of Finance was on government business elsewhere and it came, ultimately, to the point that there was a potential, that what was happening here - although the intention was right, to do an issue that had been raised which related to the current President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union - was something that could affect others, predecessors of the current president, and that there was no knowledge on this side, certainly by this member, as to who all those individuals were or what their individual circumstances were. I am not sure.

I did get some information today, indirectly at least, from officials of the Department of Finance which was offered to me by the Government House Leader and apparently, in the view of the Department of Finance, there is no advantage to anyone else arising from this. I do not know any of the circumstances of these individuals and I do not know what options may have been open to them or what options they achieved in the past, but it seems to me that if there is no advantage, or no harm done, as it were, what would be the problem in making sure that the provision that is there now that offers that option to people going back whatever, to whether it is the Charter of Rights or to the beginning of the time when the nurses' union had full-time presidents who might have had to take time out of their service under the Public Service Pension Plan directly, or under the health care corporations or whatever predecessors there were, it does not seem to me to do any serious harm to the process, if we are making the legislation retroactive, to go back to the time, whenever it was, that they had full-time presidents of the nurses' union, and let them, if they wish, consider what options there may be or may not be, given the legislation is going to affect the current and future presidents of the nurses' union.

I did object - I am not going to mention the individual's name, the current president, everyone knows who it is, but I think it would be wrong to call this a bill with this person's name on it. It has no bearing on the individual. It is the office that we are dealing with here. The office is the office of the President of the Nurses' Union, that office, based on the current and future leaders of that organization who ought to be treated in the same way as what appears to have certainly been male-dominated positions as President of the NTA and the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public and Private Employees.

Obviously there is no expectation, or it is certainly not required, that a person be a male. That just happens to have been the circumstance over the last number of years. Males and females equally can run for office and, as the minister pointed out, we have had a male as President of the Nurses' Union, which is, I think, something in the order of 95 per cent-plus female. We have had a female President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, who sat in this House and was a minister of the Crown in the recent past. There is no difference in those organizations as far as the ability of males or females to take a position, but if we are going to provide this legislation, if we are going to make it retroactive at all, what harm would there be - I understand this is going to be the amendment to be proposed by the Opposition House Leader - in making it retroactive to an appropriate period that relates to the full-time Presidents of the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union, because they may be, despite the assurances of the minister and the calculations of his officials, there may well be some advantage or otherwise to a former President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union under the legislation that is now being brought forward.

That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman. I am assuming that is the amendment that the Opposition House Leader is going to make and I will not need to speak to it, having made my remarks right now.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to clarify, my predecessor in this position prepared the bill under her direction. It went through Cabinet. The Opposition Leader sat in the Cabinet that approved this exact bill, as we have it, without a word change, because it wasn't applicable to make it retroactive at all. That was understood.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is correct. It was understood that it was not applicable. The information indicated that it was not applicable because that had already enacted, they had already moved - and I do not want to talk about anybody's personal situation. I do not think it is appropriate to do it in terms of anybody's pension benefits - but the appropriate action was taken by the individuals involved, and the predecessors, that it would have no impact. In fact, what it could do, if somebody wanted to do it, they could pay out actuarial costs in the hundreds of dollars with not one dollar benefit, not a penny, so it was not applicable. This was drafted by the previous government. It was the Opposition House Leader, who sat in Cabinet, who approved this exactly as it is. When an election was called, they did not get an opportunity to bring it forward. We brought it forward, unchanged by my predecessor who also served as president of that union, and her predecessor, and there was no impact whatsoever. Why would you make legislation retroactive that has no impact? It is only in the current position. Let's move forward. There is nobody affected adversely by it.

That is the information that came from the previous government when they drafted it and put it forward. That is the information coming from my department to me on this issue. If anybody has information otherwise, that any of these positions are any different - I do know there are conversations that have occurred with people on this regarding this position, that I am aware of, and there were no adverse things raised on this issue at all. I do not want to speak on that here in the House in a public forum. I do not think it is appropriate to do it, but I will say we are putting forth a bill in exactly the same word that was put forth and approved by the former government, that has no retroactive benefit or disadvantage to anybody except we want to move from the current position, and in the future that anybody who is out there who would want an opportunity to run for the position there, they will not be disadvantaged by not allowing that to continue as pensionable service, an advantage that NAPE has now, an advantage that the NLTA has now, and to move forward with it with no (inaudible). Why would you make something retroactive when it has no meaning and it is rendered useless and there is no advantage to do that, probably a disadvantage if you did it, technically, because it would cost with no benefit of any nature? That is why I feel it is important.

I did indicate, I think, to the Opposition House Leader this morning, I did explain that to him on this particular issue there. We are presenting it as his government put forth here and prepared it and had it ready to come to the House here, without any changes. I do not know; why would there be a change in the last year or year-and-a-half under the situation? I do not know, but we followed up on this and we think it is important to move forward with this now, get it done and move forward. We are not in any way affecting any individual, disadvantaging anybody, by doing this. It is the appropriate action. You do not make a bill that is retroactive technically beyond that and go way back to points when there is no advantage. That has been acknowledged, not only by the former government, by the recipient in that position - the former - but acknowledged by the presentation and movement of this bill through the House.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate an opportunity at Committee stage here. I would like to move an amendment, seconded by the Member for Bay of Islands: That section 1.(1) (1.1) be amended to delete the words "March 28, 1996" and replace with the words "the date of appointment or election of the first full-time President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Association.

I would like to table it, and have some word whether it is in order.

CHAIR: It is moved by the Opposition House Leader and the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile that clause 1 be amended, and the amendment is: That section 1.(1) (1.1) be amended to delete the words "March 28, 1996" and replace with the words, "the date of appointment or election of the first full-time President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Association".

The Chair rules that this amendment is in order.

The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will direct my remarks, now that the amendment has been put forward, to the amendment.

I say to the Minister of Finance: That is why I think we have a House of Assembly, because everything that people do in committees, and everything that people do in Cabinet, is not necessarily proper. Sometimes when we get here, when things are reduced from a Cabinet paper to a piece of legislation, I say to the minister, and other people get to delve into it and consider what the impact is of what you are doing, some people, on second sober thought and reflection, conclude that we did not think about that.

I do not think anybody on that side, or anybody in any previous Administration, is going to suggest that they are infallible. The minister - I counted - when he just go up to respond to the Leader of the NDP, said no less than nine times - nine times - it has to be okay because the former Administration dealt with the paper.

Now, I say to the minister, two wrongs do not make a right. If you spot somewhere down the line that what you did - like we did here the other evening, this Thursday past - that there might be some negative impact here on someone else, I say to the minister, this is the time and place to deal with it, and this is the time to bring it up, and not assume - because anybody, whether it was a Liberal or Conservative or NDP Administration that did it, you could not have possibly done something wrong or had not considered all the implications of what you had done. That is the spirit in which this amendment is put forth.

Nobody on this side of the House disagrees with what you have here in this particular Bill 63, no problem whatsoever with what is in Bill 63 as to its intent, its motivation, and what you are trying to accomplish here. We tried to make that clear right from the beginning. The only concern is what is not in here, and that is: Are we creating a law that is only going to impact the current office holder and on a go-forward basis? If that is the case, what about persons who occupied the position previously? Because this, indeed, is retroactive. Whether the minister wants to acknowledge it or not, it is retroactive to March 28, 1996.

Now, I confirm as well that the minister and I did speak this morning. He called me to give me some background on possibly some people who might not be impacted. I say to the minister, I have had an opportunity to talk to one of those two people who might or might not be impacted by this. The reaction I received was: I don't know if I am impacted by it. I have not had an opportunity to check out my options, because this was never a situation that I knew I could possibly look at and avail of.

The person's reaction was: I would love to have the opportunity. If it is going to be a law that applies to all of us, I would like to have my accountant or whomever look at it and read it myself and see if it is good for me or not good for me.

I do not think that is too much for anybody to ask. In its current form, this particular bill is discriminatory. It is not giving equality to all the past office holders. It is retroactive in nature and, if you are going to be retroactive, why not treat everybody fairly? That was the only position that we took from the beginning on this issue here, and nothing has changed.

Who is the Minister of Finance of this Province, or anybody else, to tell someone who possibly could have a right here, that we do not think you have a right so we are not going to give it to you. That is not the purpose of making legislation. All we are saying is, treat everybody fairly. If these individuals are impacted by it, or can take advantage of that law if it is to their benefit, let them do so, but it ought to be the individual who makes that determination, not the Minister of Finance. I do not think anybody over there, including the Minister of Finance, is so filled with wisdom, knowledge and information that you get to speak for everybody. We are not creating a right that is contingent upon your interpretation of whether or not it applies to somebody. We are creating a law here to decide if that person wants to avail of it or not. That is what we hope to think we were doing here, but this government is not even giving those individuals an opportunity to make that option and consider that option. We can use all the willy-nilly excuses we want, about: you fellows did it as a Cabinet and therefore we should just put through what you agreed to. Well, I am sorry, that does not hold water with me. If it was not right when we did it, it is not right now and it was not right then. It ought to be changed so that it is not discriminatory, which it currently is. It is retroactive, so why not make it retroactive so that all persons can take advantage of it?

I do not think we need to belabour this anymore. This is not a rocket science issue. We are either, as legislators in this Province, going to treat everybody fairly or we are not going to treat them fairly. We are talking about a government that professes to be open, that professes to be accountable and we want to go down that road to be open, accountable and transparent. This ties in with this again. We cannot treat one, two or three individuals differently than what we are going to treat the other people who are going to take advantage of this. That is all we are suggesting, that in the fairness of equity why not give the option. If it is no good to anyone and if the Minister of Finance is correct - that will be quickly determined - those individuals will look at it and if this law, which is then equal, which is then non-discriminatory, is of no benefit to that person, they are going to tell the minister real quickly: thank you very much, minister, even though that law is good for me I cannot avail of it. Thank you very much. You did not discriminate against me but it is of no benefit to me. That ought to be the individual's position to make, not the Minister of Finance's position.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment to clause 1 of Bill 63?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The Chair rules the amendment be defeated.

Division.

Call in the members.

CHAIR: Are we ready for the vote?

All those in favour of the amendment, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Parsons, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Collins.

CHAIR: Those against the amendment, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Edward Byrne, Mr. Rideout, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Harding, Ms Burke, Ms Whalen, Mr. Manning, Mr. Denine, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Ms Goudie, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Oram, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Mr. Ridgley.

Mr. Chair, four ayes and eighteen nays.

CHAIR: The Chair rules the amendment is defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Clause 1. Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, the 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'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 63, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 63 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Order 8, Committee of the Whole, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No. 2, Bill 60.

CHAIR: Bill 60, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No 2.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just briefly, I will just touch on a couple of things here. One is that, right now it authorizes one aspect, that the deputy minister would be authorized to settle matters in accordance with Treasury Board guidelines with a deficit of $1,000 or less. The deputy minister would be authorized to deal with $1,000 or less. Right now under current guidelines for $1,000 to $5,000, it must come to Cabinet. This would give the minister of a department the authority to be able to negotiate and do a settlement up to $5,000, provided the board - you would have to get the approval of Treasury Board. There are seven ministers who sit on Treasury Board, which is half the Cabinet. If you wanted $1,000 to $,5000, it would be the approval of Treasury Board. They can then settle that and do that. But that is not to give the minister authority to go out and do it on his own. It is with approval of the board and that constitutes seven ministers.

That is, basically, what we are asking here. The deputy minister now, for instance in section 18, already has the authority to write off assets of $1,000 or less; to write them off but not to settle them. He can write off $1,000 but he cannot settle it. So, that gives authority to do that on less than $1,000 and, of course, to the ministers then with the approval of Treasury Board. Any of these amounts will come before the ministers of Treasury Board, with seven ministers, of which the President of Treasury Board chairs. That decision will be made and we will look at all avenues, provided there is no possible means to collect. The company could be gone bankrupt. There could be numerous types of instances.

What it does, it does not empower any single individual, the minister. They must have Treasury Board approval, which is seven ministers sitting representing Cabinet. It is a Committee of Cabinet, Treasury Board, and the seven ministers would do that. Instead of having to bring back $1,500 amounts to Cabinet and $2,500 amounts to Cabinet and so on, seven ministers who comprise a Committee of Cabinet could give approval to the minister to deal with that, upon Treasury Board's approval. The minister would move on that basis, provided you put the explanation, you put the rationale, you have looked at the backgrounds that deal with this that has flowed up through the system from our officials in our department. So, that basically is what this is doing here and that is why we ask that we would do this to make it more efficient. If seven ministers agree with doing it, why have to come to Cabinet and have to deal with smaller amounts of money? Anything over $5,000 would still have to come to Cabinet to get dealt with there, and we figure that is only for the sake of efficiency.

Deputy ministers also are authorized with millions, some of them hundreds of millions of dollars authority in their departments; $1.65 billion in one department under there and they cannot settle less than $1,000? They can write it off now but they cannot settle it and complete it. So, that is giving authority to adhere to something that - that aspect of it is a very minor housekeeping aspect and it is not doing anything out of the ordinary there. That is still subject to the same basic scrutinies of a team of ministers who sit around Treasury Board and anything between $1,000 and $5,000. That is why we ask that this be done expeditiously dealing in government business and not cramping down Cabinet with $1,500, $1,100, $1,200 and $2,500 things that officials have recommended and that Treasury Board group of seven ministers feel it is important to do.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We had some commentary on this in second reading this past Thursday. The minister was not here at the time and I am not sure if he was made aware of the concerns that I raised at that time for Committee stage.

I am assuming that when this is done and these settlements or these write-offs are indeed done - I noticed, for example, under Innovation and Trade now, whenever there are write-offs in that particular department and the reports are filed here in the House, the matter of who got certain amounts written off and what the amount actually was written off is made public on an annual basis by form of a report. I am just assuming that somewhere in our legislation, all be it we are going to allow this now, less than $5,000 and less than $1,000, that there is indeed a mechanism in existence for reporting, or will be something in existence for reporting, exactly what is written off and to whom and what the amount is. I realize this is a necessary bookkeeping measure -

MR. SULLIVAN: For the public accounts of the Province.

MR. PARSONS: I would think the public accounts would protect that and anything done here would have to be covered under that legislation because as opposed to items three and four in here, item two is much more or could be much more drastic in terms of the amounts. That allows the minister, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, to write off a full debt. So, we are not only talking about less than $1,000 or less than $5,000, we are talking here in subsection (2) of the fact that you can write off the full debt. That is a very substantial one and I just wanted an assurance, based on my questions the other night, that when this is done, no doubt it is done with advice of your department and so on, but it is properly recorded and the public can know who had debts written off in the Province.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 2 is carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Clause 3.

CHAIR: Shall clause 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 3 is carried.

On motion, clause 3 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, the enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No. 2.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 60, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No 2, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 60 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Order 4, Committee of the Whole, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And The Elections Act, 1991. (Bill 40)

CHAIR: Bill 40, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And The Elections Act, 1991.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

When we concluded or adjourned debate in Committee on Bill 40, there were a couple of points that were made. First of all, just let me recap quickly. Bill 40 deals with three significant points. One, it fixes a time for the next election. It says in the bill it will be the second Tuesday of October, 2007.

Secondly, what it does, it deals with the span or period of time that if a seat becomes vacant in the Legislature, Mr. Chair, that there would be a set amount of time when government must call the by-election and have it over and done with, I believe, within a ninety-day period. Now, within that section of the act it talks about, specifically, that the election be no - I think not later than twenty-one days. No sooner than twenty-one days and no later than thirty days.

During this particular debate members opposite raised, what we consider, a potentially legitimate point. The point was this, that in fixing the term for the general election all it said was that the election be not less than twenty-one days. The point was made that we did not - even though we are fixing a specific time and place today for an election three-years hence forward - necessarily, members thought - in the bill it did not specifically say what the trigger date would be. In other words, it was pointed out that the election could be called in July, potentially, for October. Unlikely, but having said that, certainly the bill could be interpreted that way. That raised considerations or concerns with respect to when an election is actually called, because, Mr. Chair, as you know, being an elected member yourself for four general elections, that once an election is called the Elections Act immediately kicks in and there is a code of conduct or a code in which fundraising activities and others must take place within that time frame.

Having given the point raised by members opposite the consideration necessary, Mr. Chair, we are prepared to move forward with an amendment, and the amendment basically says, "Clause 3 of Bill 40 is deleted and the following substituted: Section 58 of the Elections Act, 1991 is repealed and the following substituted:..." - and I believe it is in order - "...The day of polling to be fixed by the proclamation required under section 57 shall be a day not less than 21 clear days from the date of the proclamation nor more than 30 clear days."

In other words, when the election - we know that it is going to be on a specific day, the second Tuesday in October, 2007, but essentially what this amendment does is exactly what the members opposite, what we talked about in the Legislature. It provides for a trigger date for when the election must occur. It cannot be twenty-one days less, nor more can it be longer than thirty days. So we believe that it does accomplish, for consistency purposes, I think, is what members opposite talked about, what it intends to accomplish. It does not take away from the fixed term election. If this amendment provides the type of clarity for members in the House in terms of when actually the Lieutenant-Governor is contacted and when the Elections Act, itself, must apply for the next general election, then we are prepared to move that amendment if, in fact - and we believe it does provide the clarity that members opposite requested and debated.

With that, I will take my seat and let any other members who would wish to participate, certainly give them the opportunity to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: It is moved by the Government House Leader that clause 3 of Bill 40 be amended, and the amendment reads, "Section 58 of the Elections Act, 1991 is repealed and the following substituted: The day of polling to be fixed by the proclamation required under section 57 shall be a day not less than 21 clear days from the date of the proclamation nor more than 30 clear days."

The Chair rules that this amendment is in order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the copy of the amendment here. We had put this forward. There was some rigorous debate in second reading on this particular bill, Bill 40, some days in the past, and I think there were various comments made, some on philosophical grounds, as to the rationale or the reason for some of the decisions here, particularly about the leadership issue, and many people voiced their opinion as to where they stood on that issue, but one of the principal concerns was, indeed, the start point for an election. It is fine to know when to have it. The consistency between a by-election and a general election, we thought, was missing, and we will certainly be supportive of this amendment that has been put forward by the Government House Leader because we think it does give the consistency and the certainty in a general election that we now will also have in a by-election.

We are supportive of that particular amendment, notwithstanding some differences we might have as to the underpinnings of the rest of the bill as expressed by members on this side. We will be voting in favour of Bill 40.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to comment on the amendment being proposed by the Government House Leader, and perhaps ask Your Honour's guidance in how to move an amendment to that.

I had given notice the other day, when we were debating this, that I was concerned about the fact that, despite the attempts to bring some certainty to our electoral process by having a fixed date for an election, we were still going to keep this uncertainty with respect to a by-election, that you were going to have the ability to call a by-election and have it either twenty-one days, twenty-two days, twenty-eight days, thirty days, twenty-nine days, and still the government would maintain its control over that level of certainty.

I think the Member for Trinity North spoke about his own by-election being called twenty-one days after the vacancy, and how true that was to the spirit of this amendment. I spoke, Mr. Chairman, as you may recall, by saying, yes, of course, the election was called in twenty-one days because the government knew that the member who resigned was going to resign, because he was a government member. They called it twenty-one days because they were prepared, they could be ready, they could have canvassed potential candidates, they could have notified those people who might be involved and interested, that there was going to be an election in twenty-one days, but nobody else knew except the government. We are still keeping that level of uncertainty in this legislation, not only for a by-election but also for a general election, so it is going to be very interesting, Mr. Chairman.

I can envisage, in October of 2007 - we all know there is going to be an election - or September of 2007, there is going to be an election on the second Tuesday in October, on October 9, but in the middle of September the David Cochranes of the day will be saying: Well, Mr. Premier, when are you going to call the election? Are you going to call it today? Are you going to call it tomorrow? Are you going to call it the next day? How long is the election going to be? Twenty-one days? Twenty-three? Twenty-six?

Why are we leaving this kind of stupidity and idiocy in the public domain for an election that has a fixed date? We have a fixed date for an election but we do not know how long the campaign is. We do not know how long the official campaign is. It could be twenty-one days, it could be twenty-six, it could be twenty-nine. What are we doing here? Why are we maintaining the trappings of the old system where the government decides when the election is going to be, any time within five years, where the government decides whether it is going to be twenty-one days or, under current laws, thirty-five?

MR. SULLIVAN: You can start now.

MR. HARRIS: The Minister of Finance is correct, you can start campaigning now, and anybody who wants to start campaigning can start campaigning now, but the rules that govern the election will kick in on some date chosen by his Ministry, by his Cabinet, by his Premier. Why is that, Mr. Chairman? Can someone give us a rational reason why that should be? Why do we maintain this flexibility - well, you can call it flexibility - why do we maintain whatever advantage it might be? Can we not understand collectively that there is going to be a twenty-eight day campaign or a thirty day campaign so that we know that whatever plans people are making for an election, they are going to kick in on a certain date. Do we need to have this uncertainty? Do we have to have buses painted and parked in a garage somewhere because the Premier might call the election tomorrow but he might wait for another week or he might wait another ten days? This is the kind of foolishness, Mr. Chairman, that has been -

MR. E. BYRNE: He can't wait ten days.

MR. HARRIS: Okay, he may not be able to wait ten days.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is right, he cannot wait ten days.

MR. HARRIS: Well, he cannot wait ten days. It could be nine.

This is the kind of foolishness that is being left in the public domain with this kind of legislation. So, Mr. Chairman, I am going to move to amend that amendment. Perhaps the Chair can help me. I have something drafted here. I do not know if this particular amendment has been found to be in order yet. If it is, I would then like to submit an amendment to the amendment, and perhaps Your Honour can rule whether the amendment to the amendment is in order while you are at it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

If it is the pleasure of the Committee, the Committee should rule on the first amendment first, to avoid confusion here. What we will do is vote on the amendment as put forward by the Government House Leader. Then, if the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has another amendment to put forward before we pass clause 3, we can entertain that amendment at that time, before we vote on the clause as amended. I think that is the right procedure to use.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I am not going to question the Chair's ruling, but let me say this for the record. Let's put this in context, first of all. What the member opposite is saying is that we have big difficulty because we do not know if the Premier will call an election, or when it is going to be, and we are going to have to wait a week to find out. Now, that is essentially what we are saying.

So, when it comes down to August, or the middle of September, or September 1, will it be a thirty day election, or a twenty-eight day, or a twenty-six day? Let's be honest, folks!

What we have presented here tonight, in our view, is a government that has taken power out of their hands and put it to the Legislature, first and foremost.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: At the direction of the Premier, supported by Cabinet and government caucus, we have removed the absolute right of a Premier to call a snap election at any time, unbeknownst to anybody. We have removed the possibility for the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi to wake up some Wednesday morning in a year-and-a-half and have to face the electorate without him and his party being ready. That is what we are removing here.

We have provided to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and every other member opposite, and every person in this Province, the opportunity now for him and his party to get ready for the next general election because it will be the second Tuesday in October, 2007. No government had the fortitude or the backbone to do that for the last fifty-four years, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: No government has had the backbone to do it.

To suggest, for some reason, that it should be that time because it is going to eliminate confusion and the David Cochranes of the world saying: When are you calling it today, Premier? When are you going to call it today? You know when it is going to be called. It will be called, the election day -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the member, you do.

Here is when it will be called. It will be called on the second Tuesday in October, 2007. You can look at your calendar right now and plan your holidays around it, if you wish. It will either be twenty-one days back from that, or somewhere between twenty-one days and thirty. A pretty prescribed time, I say to the member, not really a big deal to get excited about.

Let me also say this, with respect to the legislation: It is absolutely probably one of the most progressive pieces of legislation that government can bring forward. Again, I do not think it can be underscored or understated in terms of what we are doing here.

I will just give you my own personal experience. When I was leader of the party in 1998, for most of August - and you went through this as well - we believed, and it almost was an election call in the fall of 1998. We had candidates running. We had ramped up. We had people writing our policy book. Two years, less than two years, since the general election previous, and it came very close. Now, fast forward just several more months. In February, 1999, seven or eight months later, we woke up in the middle of February, on a stormy day, with an election call. Who had notice of that? Nobody. Half of the Cabinet did not know until two days before, if not all of the Cabinet. Most of the caucus were called in and told: Go get your stuff ready - two days beforehand.

Now, what we are doing here, clearly, is living up to a commitment that we made. I do not know. At 8:00 p.m. on December 13, we are telling people, when this legislation passes, and we are telling you also, that on the second Tuesday in October, 2007, some time twenty-one days before that but no greater than thirty, the next election will be called. How much clearer can you be than that?

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do not know why the Government House Leader is getting excited. I simply asked for a rational explanation as to why there needs to be twenty-one to thirty days, and what I got was: We just passed clause 1.

Well, we know we passed clause 1. Clause 1 says the election is going to be held on the second Tuesday of October, 2007. We all know that. We all passed that. We all agreed with that. We did that last week. I do not know if the member forgets about that, but last week we agreed with that and we passed that. We praised the government - I certainly did - I praised the government for having the willingness to bring that in, and the political courage to do that. We are over that now. I am over it. I do not know if he is over it or not, maybe he is not, but I am over that. I am accepting the fact that they have done something good. Now I am asking, simply, at 8:00 p.m. on December 13, knowing that there is going to be an election on October 9, 2007, I want to know the reason for having some variable election period.

Now, I have been in elections too. I have been in four general elections here, as leader of a party. I have been in two federal elections, and a by-election here as well, so I have been in seven federal and provincial elections. In the federal campaigns there is a fixed date, there is a fixed time. The campaign is of a certain length. I am merely asking: Why is it that we do not have a fixed period of time for an election here?

I am proposing an amendment, which I have made available to the Table, that we have an amendment to clause 3. My motion is: To amend clause 3, to delete all the words after the word "shall" and replace them with the words "be a day 28 clear days from the date of the proclamation."

That would provide for a four week election period for a by-election and for a general election. There is no reason why we should not have that kind of certainty and clarity so we do not have the foolishness that comes with election rules kicking in on a certain date or not kicking in on a certain date. We will all know, not only when the election is, we will all know when the election rules come into affect, when the spending will come into affect, when the provisions for having media buys come into affect, when all of those rules that affect the planning for an election, which - if the government is saying: Look, we want to keep some advantage here, we are going pretty far here, guys. We are going pretty far. We are telling you when the election is going to be. Give us a little bit of an advantage here so we can decide at least how long the election is going to be, and we can have our plans a little bit more firmly advanced. We might even be able to book a little TV time at a certain date, and have a little bit of an advantage. Give us some advantage. We are being nice guys here.

If that is your explanation, put it on the table, admit it, be honest about it, and at least we can vote on what we know about it; but, I have not yet heard from anyone opposite what the explanation is, as to why we need to have a period somewhere between twenty-one and thirty days, and not a thirty day, twenty-one day or twenty-eight day election.

You know, changing the election rules to twenty-one days was considered to be a very backward step in this Province because it was considered to be an opportunity for a sitting government to take advantage of a short-term rise or change in the popularity polls, take the opposition by surprise, have a quick election. I think the hon. member knows that if certain elections ran a week longer than they had in the past, the outcome may have been different.

MR. COLLINS: He could have been Premier.

MR. HARRIS: He may have been Premier - not today, but a long time ago - if a certain election may have been twenty-eight days instead of twenty-one. There were probably a few elections in the past, Mr. Chairman, where the addition of an additional week would have made a difference.

My argument is twofold. It is not just based on the fact that we need some certainty, but it is based on the fact that the length of a campaign can have some influence on the outcome. Three weeks is very short. Four weeks gives a reasonable opportunity for a debate to take place, for people to focus on an election campaign, to get totally au courant with the issues, and to make a decision.

I think that we see, if you go across the country, most provinces have a reasonably lengthy election period. I think Alberta's must have been about four or five weeks, the recent election in Alberta. Five weeks may be too long for a provincial election. I know seven weeks - when I ran in 1987, in a seven-week campaign, federally, that was a really long period of time and I would not wish that on anybody, Mr. Chairman. In fact, the federal elections are now thirty-five days so we do not have that issue.

Mr. Chairman, a twenty-eight day campaign for a provincial election seems, to me, to be a reasonable period of time. To have twenty-one days is frankly just too short for a full opportunity for the electorate to consider all the matters that are involved, and for people to be able to - especially unknown candidates. It is all right for incumbents, and I have had the advantage of being the incumbent in the last four elections so it has been to my advantage to have a short campaign, I suppose, because whoever is running against me, if they do not have a profile, they have only a certain period of time to get known during an election campaign. So it does benefit incumbents to have a short campaign, and perhaps it has benefitted me.

From the electorate's point of view, to get to know newcomers to the political process, a twenty-eight day campaign is more appropriate and I would urge hon. members to consider that when they are voting on the amendment, assuming the Chair finds my sub-amendment or amendment to the amendment to be in order.

CHAIR: It is moved by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that clause 3 of Bill 40 be amended. The amendment to clause 3, as put forward by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, is: To amend clause 3 to delete all the words after the word "shall" and replace them with the words "be a day 28 clear days from the date of the proclamation."

The Chair rules that the amendment is in order.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment to clause 3 of Bill 40 as put forward by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The amendment is defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt said amendment to clause 3 of Bill 40 as put forward by the Government House Leader?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The amendment is carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt clause 3 as amended?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 3 carried.

On motion, clause 3, as amended, carried.

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

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the enacting clause?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And The Elections Act, 1991.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 40, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And The Elections Act, 1991, carried with amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 40 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Order 5, Committee of the Whole on An Act Respecting Court Security. (Bill 54)

CHAIR: Bill 54, An Act Respecting Court Security.

A bill, "An Act Respecting Court Security." (Bill 54)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I raised some concerns about this the other evening at second reading, and the minister undertook to look into the proposed measures of security that were to be undertaken. Since that time, I have had an opportunity to speak not only with the minister but also with the High Sheriff who has described the type of regulations contemplated and the type of screening that is to be proposed under this act.

As members will recall, the concern that I had was that, throughout the act, the word screening is used quite liberally in terms of providing for screening procedures for court security in the courts of the Province. Yet, the minister's speech talked about searches, and conducting searches, and, as a result of that, I had some significant questions as to what kind of authorization was being requested of the House in terms of giving the court's officers, the Sheriff's Officers and security officers, the kind of search procedures that I thought might be inappropriate or go beyond the kind of requirements that might be necessary.

It turns out, Mr. Chairman, after discussion with the minister and his officials, that two things provide some comfort to me. One is that the regulations that we are talking about are regulations that will not be made by the minister and his officials but rather, in fact, by the Rules Committee of the Supreme Court itself, and by the Chief Judge - in consultation with the minister - of the Provincial Court, and I understand a soon-to-be-developed Rules Committee for the Provincial Courts; and, although the word "search" is used in the act, what is contemplated, in fact, is the kind of screening that would take place using the same sorts of procedures that are used at the airport or on the entrance to the House of Assembly galleries upstairs, where you walk through a type of door frame, or whatever, that has an electronic device which detects metal or the use of these wands which may detect metal again.

The third possibility would be a fluoroscope type arrangement such as, again, the airport security where a bag or garment can be passed through a detector of one sort or another; that there is no actual searches contemplated. The closest thing to a search would be to ask a person to empty out their pockets so that they can be checked if there is anything that shows up on the wands. This seems to be entirely appropriate and inoffensive, Mr. Chairman. This was the kind of comfort I was seeking from the minister who was unable to provide that level of detail the other evening.

Having heard what the officials and the minister had to say, and knowing that the regulations will be presented by the rules committee of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the Chief Judge of the provincial court, and that what is contemplated is based generally on the Manitoba regulations that have been passed under their Court Security Act. Having reviewed them, it seems that this is not something that we need to be overly concerned about. I appreciate the minister taking the time to make the High Sheriff available for discussions on this issue and providing a level of understanding about how this would work.

I do understand that the Opposition House Leader raised, the other night, the issue of there being two different procedures for the rules; one for the provincial court and one for the Supreme Court. It appears that the difference with that is there are no rules committee for the provincial court as it stands right now. The minister has undertaken to develop, with the Chief Judge of the provincial court, a rules committee procedure which would then consider some of these matters, but in the interim, this particular procedure has been adopted in order to enable this to take place.

I understand the necessity for this, Mr. Chairman, and I accept the minister is undertaking to follow through on this. Although the rules committee of the court and the provincial judge will be the ones responsible for the rules, it is my understanding from the discussions that we have held, that the intention here is to be as unobtrusive as possible. Although there are authorizations for weapons to be available in the courtroom, this is not something that is anticipated, except in the extreme circumstance or circumstances where it is thought to be advisable because of the circumstances of a particular situation.

I also have been advised, Mr. Chairman, that the notion of screening people entering the court will not apply to officers of the court. Officers of the court, being court officials, and lawyers, who are members of the Bar, and officers of the court by virtue of their office, that unless there is some very particular reason to do so, officers of the court will not be subjected to these routine screening procedures.

These are all matters that are of great concern to me, and I say this in all sincerity to hon. members. I know, looking around the room, there are several members of the Bar here; some of whom have been members of the Bar as long as myself. The Opposition House Leader and I were admitted to the Bar the same day. We are officers of the court. We are some of the people who are - who it is designed to be protected by these rules. Obviously, it is important to us for that reason, but also important to ensure that the rights of privacy and the dignity of the person be protected as much as possible while maintaining security in the courts.

Having said that, in putting those notions on the record from our discussions with the minister and the officials, I withdraw any objection to those provisions of the legislation and offer my support to the legislation as written and before the House.

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

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

I thank the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi for his comments, which pretty well summarizes the review of the legislation with respect to the concerns that the hon. member raised the last time we discussed this bill in this House. I would now like to address the concerns that were raised by the hon. the Opposition House Leader, who had concerns with respect to the making of the regulations.

Under section 11 of the act, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Cabinet, can make regulations dealing with the designation of certain areas as court areas. But, under section 11.(2) and under section 12, it is, in fact, the courts themselves that make regulations dealing with what happens within those areas. As the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi did point out with respect to the Supreme Court Trail Division and Unified Family Court, and also the Court of Appeal, it is the rules committee of those courts that will, in fact, make the regulations.

The reason why the same thing did not apply with respect to the provincial court is because the provincial court does not have a rules committee to date. Accordingly, the chief judge agreed to the wording under section 11.(2), which indicated that it will be the minister recommending the regulations to the Cabinet but upon the advice of the chief judge. The chief judge has agreed with that. We have agreed that we will follow that process, that I will make recommendations as minister - well, the minister, of course, will make recommendations, upon the advice of the chief judge, until such time as the provincial court act is amended to provide for a rules committee.

I believe that will answer the concerns the hon. Member for Burgeo & LaPoile has read.

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 13 carry.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 13 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 13 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 13 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, the enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act Respecting Court Security.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 54, An Act Respecting Court Security, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 54 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move Bill 59 be discussed in Committee, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law.

CHAIR: Bill 59, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law.

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 39.

CHAIR: Clauses 1 to 39. Shall clauses 1 to 39 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 39 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 39 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 59, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 59 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move discussion to Committee of the Whole on Bill 43, An Act To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists.

CHAIR: Bill 43, An Act To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists.

A bill, "An Act To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists." (Bill 43)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We would like to move a couple of amendments. I realize you go through clause by clause, but probably in the interest of getting it on the Table, and it may come up in other sections there, we would like to move an amendment to section 7, such that it should ready, after the word "person" - it says, "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall appoint a person, on a resolution of the House of Assembly, as the registrar of lobbyists...".

Also, in section 23.(1), (3), (4) and (5), wherever there is a reference again to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, it should read, "Lieutenant-Governor in Council, on a resolution of the House of Assembly".

These are the amendments we move, and I understand these are in order.

The purpose, of course, is again in the interest of openness and accountability and in line with what we have done with other officials in the Province, be it the Child and Youth Advocate, or the Privacy Commissioner whom we appointed today, or the Citizens' Representative. That is done on resolution of the House, and we feel that in the interest of total independence of these bodies, and the fact that they would be arm's length, it would only make good sense and fulfill the ultimate ambition of openness and accountability to have it done here by the House. Obviously, any recommendation that would come forward would come forward from the government because it is a recommendation of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. It merely would be by way of a resolution here.

We have put provisions in the Lobbyists Act, and we will get to this again when we discuss the purchasing piece that we did today, and the public tendering piece. Sure, it comes from the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, as it should, but we are saying, in the interest again of conformity and certainty, if it was done by resolution of the House it would certainly tie a lot of the officers of the House together under the same, we would suggest, open and truly accountable piece.

CHAIR: It is moved by the hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile that certain sections -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

Before the Chair can rule whether the amendment is in order or not, we do not have the amendment distributed to the Table.

I recognize the hon. the Government House Leader.

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

We are going to do a couple of more second readings tonight, so what I may suggest, in the fairness of giving the Chair time, I am going to move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

We will get to another piece of legislation from the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. It will give the Chair the opportunity, time to have a look at the amendment, and then we will get back into Committee stage a little later, in the interest of moving the House of Assembly along a little bit.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report Bill 63, Bill 60, Bill 54, and Bill 59 passed without amendment, and Bill 40 passed with amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 60, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act, No.2; Bill 63, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991; Bill 54, An Act Respecting Court Security; and Bill 59, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statue Law, passed without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bills be read a third time?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report that Bill 40, An Act To Amend The House of Assembly Act And The Elections Act, 1991, passed with amendments.

When shall the report be received.

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

On motion, report received and adopted.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said amendments be now read a first time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: First reading of amendments to Bill 40.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: The second reading of amendments to Bill 40.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall Bill 40, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And The Elections Act, 1991, be read a third time?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, amendments read a first and second time, bill ordered read a third time presently by leave.

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

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

I move that Bill 40 be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 40, An Act To Amend The House of Assembly Act And The Elections Act, 1991, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And The Elections Act, 1991, Bill 40.

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The House of Assembly Act And The Elections Act, 1991," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 63, amendments to the Public Service Pensions Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 63, 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 63 be read a third time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, Bill 63.

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

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

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

I move that Bill 54, dealing with the Court Security Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 54, An Act Respecting Court Security, be now read a third time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 54 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Court Security, Bill 54.

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Court Security," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 54)

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

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

I move that Bill 59, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In Statute Law, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there consent to proceed with third reading on this particular bill?

AN HON. MEMBER: There is, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Consent has been granted.

It is moved and seconded that Bill 59, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 59 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law. (Bill 59)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 59)

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

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

I move that Bill 60, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No. 2, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 60, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No. 2, be read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 60 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No. 2. (Bill 60)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No. 2," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 60)

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

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

By leave, Mr. Speaker, I want to move first reading of Bill 66, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999.

MR. SPEAKER: Has consent been given to proceed with the readings?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999. (Bill 66)

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999," carried. (Bill 66)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a first time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999. (Bill 66)

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Later.

On motion, Bill 66 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave. (Bill 66)

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

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

There are two more motions there. I just asked the hon. the Opposition House Leader and the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi if I could ask leave to give first reading so those could be tabled as well tonight. That is Motion 2, ask leave for the bill to be read a first time, An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act, Bill 64. And, Motion 1, ask leave for the bill to be read a first time, An Act Respecting Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credits, Bill 58.

MR. SPEAKER: Has leave been granted to introduce these motions?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

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 Occupational Health and Safety Act, Bill 64.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act," carried. (Bill 64)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded the said bill be now read a first time. Is it the pleasure of the House the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act, Bill 64.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, Bill 64 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

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 Respecting Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credits, Bill 58.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. 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'.

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credits," carried. (Bill 58)

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credits. (Bill 58)

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Later.

On motion, Bill 58 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

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

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

Order 14, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act, Bill 62.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 62, An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act." (Bill 62)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to address briefly what this is all about. The Auditor General has made reference in his reports in the past that borrowing money to finance real estate under the Pooled Pension Fund - the Auditor General has indicated that that contravenes the act and there is no authority under a particular act to do this, the Pensions Funding Act. The Justice department has indicated that there is authority under the act to do that, under the Financial Administration Act, and they are not stepping outside their authority, and he has noted this in previous Auditor General reports. They have indicated that maybe it is not public money, it is private money because it is in a pension plan - is one of the arguments and so on put forth - but we feel, Mr. Speaker, that whether it is - the Auditor General feels it is violating, Justice lawyers give advice that it is not. We felt, to be 100 per cent sure, let's make the change now and let's do it anyway, then there is no doubt whatsoever and it certainly satisfies that.

I will just give the nature of what happens. There is $2.6 billion in the Pooled Pension Fund. In order to fully utilize that money - it has been making a return of 10.2 per cent over the last twenty-four years, I might add. It is performing quite well and it has been invested and getting good returns. Sometimes you buy real estate - when you go out, let's say, to buy $20 million worth of real estate under this Pooled Pension Fund, there are a lot of different funds that buy properties, and let's say there was a $10 million mortgage still owing on it and another $10 million. You pay $10 million cash and then you assume the mortgage for $10 million, without having to pay out $20 million in the full amount. So, you have a cash outlay of $10 million and you assume the mortgage.

The Auditor General is indicating that that could contravene the act and law. We are saying: Well, we are going to do it anyway. We feel that where there is doubt, where the Auditor General feels strongly on this one, we want to leave no doubt whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. We want to have full transparency and accountability. We want to make sure, regardless of what we are told by our officials, we want to go the extra mile. We want to be able to prove this and make sure it satisfies the requirements. It is in the spirit of full accountability. It will satisfy one of the concerns the Auditor General has repeatedly expressed there, and we feel that the authority here under this act, the Pensions Funding Act, will give that particular authority which raises any suspicion of any doubt whatsoever that could arise from this.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that it get expeditious passing here in the House because it is just following the Auditor General's recommendation there, and we want to be absolutely sure that there is no element of doubt, no grey area, that there is no possibility, even, of any non-compliance with that.

Thank you.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have had an opportunity to review Bill 62 and we concur with the comments of the minister. Rather than have any confusion, it is better to be clear, and it is stipulated here so that there are no problems with the Department of Justice's interpretation or the Auditor General's interpretation. It is quite legitimate and happens, and for the sake of clarity, again, we would have no problem in supporting this bill.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have listened to the minister's speech on this and I have read the act, and I clearly understand that people who are engaged in this business of buying and selling real estate need to clearly have the power to assume mortgages, and the people involved in these kinds of transactions need that kind of clarity as well, certainly, as the Auditor General.

I don't know if the minister wants to let the people of Newfoundland and Labrador know which apartment buildings in White Rock, BC, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador own and which other real estate holding we have.

I was amused to read the Pooled Pension Fund report and know that we were the proud owners of various apartment buildings in White Rock, British Columbia, some places in Ontario and other places. I understand these are real estate investments that are managed by professional real estate managers as part of the overall portfolio.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, to hear that the minister is also looking into the possibility of ensuring that a good proportion, or a significant proportion, of the pension funds are, in fact, reinvested in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That might require certain considerations. We obviously know there is a large shortage of capital in Newfoundland and Labrador. Obviously we have a shortage of venture capital which is the subject of another bill.

I am not suggesting that our pension funds be used to support venture capital as a method of economic development from a pension fund, which is supposed to be more of a conservative type investment. There is probably good reason why the pension fund cannot support significant mortgages in this Province if it is necessary to see economic development take place. We don't need to maintain our portfolio far afield. Diversity seems to be the wash word of investment these days, and if we are going to be engaged in diversity outside the Province, Mr. Speaker, I think we should also look to seeing what ways we can ensure that our significant pension fund - it is something in the order of $2.5 billion, I understand - that some of this is actually used to support the capital needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We only need to look to our neighbor, Mr. Speaker, on the other side of the Quebec-Labrador border to see how they have made use of their pension funds, of their capital requirements that reserves have for government, and many other funds, in a special organization that government controls to ensure that the capital is available for economic development and expansion in the Province of Quebec. We should start looking at ways that we can do that.

I am not suggesting that we run into this holus-bolus, without thinking about it, but we should start studying how you do that. If we are going to be owning apartment buildings in White Rock, British Columbia, perhaps we should start considering what the capital needs are of this Province for certain types of economic development, certain types of housing development, certain types of commercial building development that we might be able to support and make money for our pension fund by providing stable returns to our pension fund for the long haul for our pensioners.

I hope the minister makes a few comments on that when he closes debate, because it is something that I have talked about for a number of years, and various Ministers of Finance over time have given a certain lip service to the idea that we should start making use of our huge $2.5 billion capital fund, at least a portion of it, to assist economical development in this Province. Perhaps the minister can establish a committee to start looking into that as a way of ensuring that we have capital available for economic development.

I know the banks are, many times, reluctant to invest in this Province and we should try to see whether or not our pension funds can actually be used, to some extent, to assist in the economic development activities to make capital available for worthwhile projects in Newfoundland and Labrador, secure investments that would bring stable and good returns to our pension funds.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

If he speaks now, he will close debate at second reading.

The hon. the minister.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to touch on a couple of the points that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi raised. I just want to indicate, I guess, for the benefit of the House, and anybody who might not be highly familiar with aspects of it, the real estate aspect, because it is important that there be a certain amount of expertise in investing money on behalf of the pension funds, there is an investment company; Penreal Investments is the professional arm, I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, for his information. Penreal Investments, I am sure he is probably familiar with it. If he went through the report, any follow-up on that, he would know that it is more professionals in real estate who would do that work. If there are properties, and they see there are good investments available, I am sure the recommendation, whether it is here in Newfoundland and Labrador or elsewhere in the country, that is a good investment on behalf of the people's money who put into that plan. Sitting on that Pension Investment Committee, of course, are representatives of government, but all of the public sector unions whose employees are represented sit on the committee. I must say, it has been working very well with the different representatives, like the Public Service Pension Plan, the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union, NAPE, CUPE, the NLTA is a member of the Teachers' Pension Plan. There is investment, and other pension plans are represented by putting this money into investments where they think they will get the best return. It has had a good return. It has worked very well in that regard.

We are very concerned with the lack of capital available to grow economic growth in our Province. That is why a bill was introduced here, I say to the member, to the labour sponsored venture capital fund. That is an excellent fund. It has a high endorsement of labour, and there is a lot of involvement. In fact, representation was made - the nature of this fund. As members of our government, our Cabinet, we saw fit to approve this and bring a bill here to the House this fall because we want to see, come the new year, people who want to be able to access monies to be able to put into economic development and help businesses grow, who need that capital. In fact, we are grossly under-represented in terms of availability of capital to spur economic growth in our Province. We are way behind Nova Scotia and the other Atlantic Provinces, behind the rest of the country. We are only a pittance, only a fraction, of what is available across Atlantic Canada. We want the growth. That is one of the planks in our platform for economic growth and to spur the economy. We are looking at another fund also. Hopefully, in the new year we will be able to announce a second fund that will enable us to be able to move forward and have capital to be able to access.

There is no doubt about it, it has been mentioned before, I say to the hon. member, that utilizing our own funds for our purposes, that is a decision that certainly the pension investment committee that represents all parties and all stakeholders in that plan would have input into doing. If it is in real estate, I would hope that the expert advice of Penreal and the companies that invest, if we follow their advice, we think, on behalf of the members, the participants in this plan, we will get the best return on the dollar for the people's money, because that is money that was put there by the members of that plan, by former and current employees of this Province, and matched by government in that regard.

It is very important that they get a good return. If there is a better return here, we would like to see as much as possible invested in our Province but we cannot tie into good investment decisions that get a return for people.

We do have a pension plan that is close to $3 billion unfunded. Any monies we can make in growing that fund and getting returns helps us all and helps meet our financial obligations in the long term for that particular plan.

We certainly appreciate the support in expeditiously moving on this particular bill. We think it is in the best interest of all of the people who are participating in this plan here in our Province.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill, Bill 62, An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act. (Bill 62)

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Later.

MR. SPEAKER: Later.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 62)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 66, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999.

MR. SPEAKER: Has leave been granted for the House to proceed to Bill 66 for second reading?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

It is moved and seconded that Bill 66, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999." (Bill 66)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is a pleasure for me to be able to rise and speak to Bill 66, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999, a society that I am pleased to have been a member of - dare I say it - in excess of thirty years. I was proud to represent Western Newfoundland as a bencher in the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador for a number of years, and I am even prouder to stand here today to attempt to join with other members in amending this legislation.

This essentially is a housekeeping bill. It will modernize some of the sections of the original Law Society Act of 1999. It will add the definition of executive director to reflect the role of the executive director of the Law Society. It will also change the name of the Law Society to the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that certainly has been a change that has been warranted for some time.

One of the interesting anomalies of the Law Society, or anachronisms I should say, is that the head of the Law Society was always referred to as the treasurer, and that was always difficult for many of us to understand, why the person who was head of the Law Society, the person who normally would be the president, was always referred to as the treasurer. Of course, this amendment will now change this and the treasurer will now be known as the president, and that is in section 7.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) treasurer.

MR. T. MARSHALL: The treasurer will be the treasurer.

In addition, the position of secretary will be changed under the legislation to vice-president. The act will also reflect that, in a convocation for the purposes of a Call to the Bar, five elective members will constitute a quorum. The act will also allow benchers to make rules regarding the admission of students and the enrolment of a person who is a member of the Law Society. The purpose there: I believe there are new mobility requirements which mandate that people from other Law Societies, who come to Newfoundland, have the right to be enroled, and it is necessary for the Law Society to have authority to make those changes.

Another important thing is with respect to unclaimed trust money. The Opposition House Leader will know, and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi will know, that when you practice law for a certain period of time, sometimes you hold monies in trust and sometimes those monies stay in the trust account and people, after a period of time, do not come back for their monies. Usually, you have many accounts with very small amounts in them, and you do not know where those clients are.

The amendment to the act will allow, after certain periods of time, unclaimed trust monies to be transferred to the Law Society. They will all sit in one account and, eventually, if those funds are not claimed, I believe, after a certain period of time, those funds will go to the Law Foundation to be used to aid legal aid in this Province and to provide scholarships for students at law school.

Apart from that, Mr. Speaker, I believe the amendments are basically housekeeping in nature and I look forward to any comments from any other hon. members who wish to take part in this debate.

I look forward to the passage of this legislation in due course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will be supportive of Bill 66. The Law Society is one of the longest-standing self-regulating bodies in Newfoundland and Labrador. Of course, from time to time, circumstances change and you need to do some housekeeping and some housecleaning, one of them most notably being the name. It was always the Law Society of Newfoundland and now, quite appropriately, should be called the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador. Likewise, there is a Law Foundation which will change its name from Newfoundland to Newfoundland and Labrador. That is happening here.

Again, I guess, lawyers like to be different sometimes. How the head of the Law Society ever came to be called the treasurer, and the vice-president came to be called the secretary, I do not know the history on it myself, but it certainly seems to be contrary to all other organizations. I am sure there are people in the legal profession who are historians who could tell us the rationale for it. I am sure some good lawyers will come up with some reasons why it is justified to have those names. I think we are finally getting modern, shall we say, and calling the head of it the president instead of the treasurer, and vice-president instead of the secretary.

I notice particularly the comment about unclaimed trust funds, a very necessary and relevant change. I had the experience myself of someone who came in and paid a retainer. By law you must hold it on your books in trust, you must show it on your reports annually, and it can become a nightmare, especially if the person who paid it has moved away, which happened in my case. Here you are with monies in trust as a retainer, you cannot use it, it is not yours, and you cannot find the person. It sits there and every year your accountant, of course, thinks there is something wrong that you cannot track this person down, and the Law Society has 101 questions as to why you can't explain why this money is still on your books.

Finally, they are going to get around to now taking it out of the hands of the lawyers, if it is there, and turning it over to the law society and letting them decide what they want to do with it. That way there are a lot of lawyers in the Province who will get their books cleaned up from these unclaimed trust funds. Many of them sometimes are very small. It could be ninety-nine cents and technically you have to account for it every year, what it is doing in your account and not being distributed. Some of this housekeeping stuff you need.

I notice also, not only is the secretary being changed to vice-president, but it is also making a distinction, because some of the duties normally done by the secretary are now being done by the executive director. They are making a change to say what duties are what.

I notice as well, clause 33 here, very relevant and current, and that is that the law society shall consult annually to ensure it is in compliance with the labour mobility provisions of the agreement on internal trade. Now, that may not mean much to a lay person, but it is only in recent years that we have had these mega-firms that are interprovincial, firms like Steward McKelvey and Patterson Palmer that have lawyers all throughout Atlantic Canada, and indeed national firms and lawyers who come here to represent people. The mobility rights of lawyers to go from one province to another have been expanded dramatically in the last number of years. That is why this is here and it is making our society current with the national societies, to make sure that people do move and that they do comply with the law. So, it is much needed.

The thing that is not here that we are looking forward to in the spring, I understand, is provisions whereby lawyers will be allowed to have private corporations run their law business. Most other professionals in the Province have it. Doctors, for example, can incorporate their medical practice, take advantage of certain tax incentives by doing that, and so on. Lawyers cannot do that at present. I believe accountants can do it, as well, and professional engineers. The intent is that ultimately the Law Society, as I understand it, wants to do that with lawyers as well. It had been hoped that it would be part of this legislation. It did not make it to this round. I understand that the Law Society are refining what will be in it, and we will be back here in the spring to actually finalize the piece on private corporations permissible by lawyers. That is one that a lot of lawyers in the community are looking forward to.

We have no problem with this. It is much needed and we will be supportive of everything that is here.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say a few words on Bill 66, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999. I have had an opportunity to review the act. There is not a lot to the amendments here. It does provide for, as was mentioned, the change of the Law Society of Newfoundland to the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador. Frankly, I am surprised that this was not covered by the legislation we passed a couple of years ago, when I believe we changed in all acts, Newfoundland to Newfoundland and Labrador, with two exceptions. That was Memorial University of Newfoundland Act, because it was separately incorporated and they had their own governing body. The second exception was the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. I believe that was done because of the fact that Her Majesty the Queen personally had something to do with it and they had to check with her. That was the rationale which was presented to the House, I believe, at the time. I am not sure what Her Majesty had to say about that in the meantime, whether she actually turned her mind towards this issue, but I thought we had certainly covered such organizations as the Law Society of Newfoundland which, of course, should and now will be the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As the minister has pointed out, there are a couple of other issues here. I think the notion of the Treasurer of the Law Society being actually the president, the rationale for that may be lost in the midst of time and for whatever reason, we are now going to move into the modern area which, again, has been done in de facto for a couple of years, but the legislation seems to be catching up with that. The provision for lawyers' trust accounts from clients who have not been able to be contacted for two years to be passed over to the Law Society, I am sure will be a relief to most lawyers who have various amounts lying around that they have to try and justify to the auditors every year when the time comes. So I am sure they will be happy to see that the Law Society is going to take responsibility for that.

There is another minor change which was not, I do not think, mentioned by the minister or the Opposition House Leader, and that is complaints that may be made against lawyers have an option, where both parties can agree, to go to some sort of mediation or alternate dispute resolution mechanism before becoming an official complaint after an investigation and going to the Complaints Authorization Committee, which is a bit more of a formal procedure. So, if people do have complaints against the Law Society, and if both the member of the Law Society, the lawyer involved and the individual, are satisfied to go through some mediation process, it may be a more sensible way to resolve certain types of complaints without the necessity, which is there in the act right now, to refer the matter to what is called the Complaints Authorization Committee; starting a formal process which involves a lot of trepidation, in some cases, for a lawyer involved, but also provides an opportunity for, at least, the parties to meet through a mediator and potentially resolve disputes that otherwise would take up a lot of people's time and cause a lot of anxiety.

In general the legislation is positive, mostly housekeeping, but provides a couple of advantages to both the public and members of the Law Society in operating a little bit more efficiently. So, it has my support, Mr. Speaker, and the support of our caucus.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. If he speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister.

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

The debate has certainly been useful tonight and I know that all members of the Law Society will be pleased that this legislation will go ahead. As the Opposition House Leader said earlier today, there was concern expressed about the missing provision of the act dealing with the rights of lawyers to incorporate. I know that is something lawyers are looking forward to, but the understanding is that the government wants to make sure the model that is going to be used for the incorporation of lawyers is similar to the model used for other professions. I am sure, in all good time, we will come forward with legislation to allow lawyers, like other professions, to incorporate.

So, I thank all member for the debate and I look forward to the passage of this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 66, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999. (Bill 66)

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 66)

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

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

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain matters of certain legislation that we have just debated.

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 these 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 (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move Bill 62, dealing with the bill put forward by my colleague, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board; begin Committee debate on Bill 62.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Bill 62, An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to say a few words on the investment portfolio side of this legislation. I know the minister spoke in second reading and said that he thought it was really up to the pensions committee to decide where investments should go, that they were required to get the best investment they could, and that they would look to the experts, for example, in deciding which real estate investments to buy. I understand that, but what I am talking about is something a little different and that is some sort of policy by government which exists in other provinces. Perhaps it would require a committee or some direction from the minister to study it and prepare a paper or look into the issue because it is done in other provinces, such as Quebec, primarily, where access to or the use of the Pooled Pension Funds, Canada Pension funds and others, there are policies which assist the investment of those funds within the Province. I am not talking about venture capital, venture capital is a riskier form of capital that you wouldn't necessarily want to use pensions for, although I understand a portion of some pension funds are used for that purpose. I am talking about directing or including a policy which would foster the exercise of the decision making on investment so that there would be more investment within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I am not specifically talking about real estate, although I did notice that some apartment buildings, for example, that were held for a long time by Craig Dobbin and his companies here in Newfoundland and Labrador, are being bought by some Calgary based real estate investment trusts. Obviously, they see that as a good long-term investment. I am not talking specifically about real estate and buying up existing properties, I am talking about the possibility of funds being available because there is a severe lack of capital in this Province. I mean, the minister knows the difficulty in getting loans in this Province for various activities.

I know the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development is very interested in ensuring that capital be available to enterprises in this Province for development, and that is a problem that you hear all the time from people engaged in business, that that is a difficult road for them.

What I am suggesting to the minister is that perhaps a committee or a sub-committee of this pension committee should look into this, or that the minister's officials themselves should do an investigation, prepare a discussion paper, investigate what goes on in other provinces, see if we can find ways of developing policies that support industrial and economic development in Newfoundland and Labrador using our $2.5 billion, or a portion of it, to support that kind of development. That is what I am talking about here, not sort of saying: Well, let's wait and see if our real estate investment advisors like some property in Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is not what I am concerned about or interested in. Obviously, if they do, they will, but that is not going to encourage economic development in the Province. What will, though, is some enlightened policy in our pension rules and regulations that supports that kind of development activity. I hope this government actually undertakes that as part of their business development model and interest that has been expressed by the Premier and by other ministers as developing a new approach, I think, is the word that I have heard from time to time, and part of that new approach, I submit, should include considering to what extent our significant pension funds can be used to support economic development in a commercial way that protects those pension funds but, at the same time, supports economic development.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, in response to that, I am not going to say that we haven't got an interest. It has been talked about in general ways. That has been raised with me over the past few months. It is not an area, I say to the member, that we would certainly shut the door on, but we will look at all options available there and have further discussion and see if there are opportunities there. We do want to see economic growth. We are in the process of moving - and I mentioned the labour-sponsored venture capital fund. That is one of the areas, too, that does allow monies to be used to generate economic activity, and allow people to access capital that is important in starting and growing their business. It is important.

Ultimately, decisions on the pension fund will come. It is the people's money that is in that fund, on their behalf, and appropriate decisions - if decisions can be made that can enhance a return, can at least compete on a level playing field, can get a return there, those are opportunities that may develop in the future, but it is certainly worth exploring. It is worth looking further into. We have already had general discussions, but nothing of substance to say we are going to move forward with that.

We do want those opportunities, but it is very important, too, that we want to ensure that investment of those funds, the money belonging to people, should bring around to them, in the final analysis, the best possible return on that investment. If that can be done in our Province, all the better. That would be the number one preference, to see something happen in our Province. If that generates the best return, or a competitive return, it is important to do that.

I say to the hon. member, we will explore it further. Certainly, at this point, it is too premature to give any particular commitments. I think he was asking that we look at it in more detail. We will take a look at it and we will see if there is an opportunity that may arise there to do that.

Once again, I will just close by saying there is a Pension Investment Committee. It is made up of representatives of all the stakeholders. If they decide to invest in real estate, they have a company, Penreal Investments, that will look at the best real estate purchases. If it is in some other area of investment of those $2.6 billion worth of funds, they will look at those particular options. Anybody, with your own private money, if you are going to get a return of 15 per cent - and it has been historically that; it looks like a good investment - as opposed to a return of 5 per cent, obviously you have to make the right choices there, or the best guesstimate on it, without leveraging too much in any one area. That is a balance that investors do when they look at those aspects, the same as any pension fund looks at investing it across sometimes a whole spectrum of different types of funds.

It is something worth looking at. The final decisions, I guess, would come down to what is the best use to get the best return on that, but it is something that I would like to see, more investment in our Province. I would like to see the opportunities to access capital in our Province. If it can be done in the best interest of the fund in doing that, then everybody, I think, would support that, if that is the case.

With that Mr. Chairman, I will just conclude my comments on this particular bill.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act." (Bill 62)

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 62, An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 62 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Mr. Chair, I move that we begin debate in Committee of the Whole on Bill 66, amendments to the Law Society Act.

CHAIR: Bill 66, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999." (Bill 66)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 33.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 33 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 33 carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 33 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 66, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 66 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move Bill 43, the Lobbyists Registration Act, to begin debate in Committee of the Whole.

CHAIR: Bill 43, An Act To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists.

A bill, "An Act To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists." (Bill 43)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

Shall clause 1 carry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

Clauses 3 to 6.

Shall clauses 3 to 6 carry?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have an amendment to clause 4 of the act.

Looking at the provisions of clause 4, there seems to be a specific list of exceptions of individuals who are exempted from the act. There is specific reference in clause 4.(1)(o) to volunteer unpaid members of boards or councils.

Mr. Chair, I am not quite sure why that is there. When I asked the question, I was told it was for clarification and for clarity. Giving consideration to that, it seems to me, if it is necessary to clarify that for boards or councils, it certainly seems to be necessary to clarify it for other types of voluntary organizations, trade unions or labour organizations. I would seek to move an amendment to that.

If you look at organization, organization is fairly broad. It includes: business, trade, industry, professional or voluntary organizations, trade unions, labour organizations, Chamber of Commerce or Board of Trade, an association, charitable organization, coalition or interest group.

It seems to me that voluntary organization, trade union, labour organization, covers all of these items as well as the boards and councils that are referenced.

My motion would be as follows: To amend subparagraph 4.(1)(o) of clause 4 of the act by deleting all of the words after the word "boards" and add the words "councils, voluntary organizations, trade unions or labour organizations".

I present the amendment. I have already presented it to the law officer at the Table, who has had a look at it, but I have not heard back yet.

I just passed the amendment to the Clerk of the House for consideration by the Table as to its being in order. I believe it does seek to broaden the clarification so that other voluntary unpaid members are also part of the exclusion.

Just again for clarity, one of the unfortunate principles of law, as I am sure the Minister of Justice will acknowledge, is that if you include some and exclude others then there is a legal interpretation that applies and serves to allow an interpretation that says: well, if you excluded certain individuals but you ignored the others, then they must be included.

If we are going to follow that principle then I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that we ask that this amendment go forward.

I have other copies for the Table. The Chair may need some time to determine whether the amendment is in order or not.

CHAIR: It is moved by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that clause 4 be amended. The amendment is to subparagraph 4.(1)(o) of clause 4 of the act by deleting all the words after the word "boards" and adding the following words "councils, voluntary organizations, trade unions or labour organizations".

The Chair rules that the amendment is in order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, what I propose to do with respect to this is - after consultation with the Minister of Justice - that we would defer this amendment until tomorrow, just to give ourselves the opportunity to consult. The member may have a good point, but, being that you have raised it, there is potential there. We want to defer it until tonight. If we can pass the other sections and the other clauses of the act itself, that members have no objection to, then we can move forward with that.

I know that my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, has a couple of amendments that are fairly straightforward in terms of the points that he wants to make; but, if we could, we will defer the suggestion or the amendments made by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi for this evening and we will move towards the rest of the clauses, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 3 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 3 carried.

CHAIR: Is it the wish of the Committee to defer clause 4?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 4 is deferred.

On motion, clause 4 deferred.

CLERK: Clause 5.

CHAIR: Clause 5.

Shall clause 5 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 5 is carried.

On motion, clause 5 carried.

CLERK: Clause 6.

CHAIR: Clause 6.

Shall clause 6 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 6 is carried.

On motion, clause 6 carried.

CLERK: Clause 7.

CHAIR: Shall clause 7 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We propose the amendment to clause 7 to reflect that the appointment under that section, the registrar of lobbyists, would be done by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council on resolution of the House. We feel that, again, provides consistency and certainly puts the final plank in the bridge of accountability and openness by having the government of the day make the recommendation, but the House would become aware of it the same as we today for the privacy commissioner. All parties in the House would certainly sanction it on a resolution.

CHAIR: It is moved by the Opposition House Leader and the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile that clause 7 of section 43 now read, that in section 7, after the word "person", the following be added, "on a resolution of the House of Assembly", so that section 7 now reads: The Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall appoint a person, on a resolution of the House of Assembly, as the registrar of lobbyists for the purpose of this Act.

The Chair rules that this amendment is in order.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would speak in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, section 7 gives the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Cabinet, to appoint a person to be registrar of lobbyists for the purposes of this act. I think it is important to look at the role that the registrar plays with respect to the registry. The registrar of lobbyists has various duties, but the duties are similar to the role performed by other registrars that already exist within government, such as the Registry of Deeds, the Registry of Companies, the Registry of Securities, and different types of registries. The duties include the setup of a registry and the development of forms, the establishment of fees with the approval of the minister, issue advisory opinions in interpretation bulletins on the enforcement and administration of the Act, except the code, because the code, of course, is administered by the commissioner of lobbyists and not the registrar of lobbyists.

The lobbyists, of course, are required to registrar certain specific information such as their name, who they work for, who they are lobbying, where they are getting the money to lobby and what their lobbying objectives are.

I think this is certainly a position that is well within the idea of being appointed by the government and not being appointed by the House of Assembly, and accordingly, I would suggest that the amendment be defeated.

When you look at the Act, the registrar establishes and maintains a registry. It has to be organized in a certain manner. It is available for public inspection. The registry is made available electronically, including through the internet. This is a role that could be performed by other registries that already exist in government, the Registry of Deeds, and the Registry of Commercial Registrations. The role of the registrar of lobbyists could similarly be played by those registries, and therefore the appointment is one that can be made, and properly made, by the government rather than this House of Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to speak for a few minutes in support of the amendment by the Opposition House Leader.

The minister, when he spoke, compared the registrar of lobbyists to the Registrar of Deeds. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I think that the comparison is not a good one. I mean, the Registrar of Deeds is an administrative position which requires the registrar to develop a system where you file deeds, stamp them, photocopy them, and maintain an accurate list for the review of the public. The registrar of lobbyists is a public office holder of a different type, one that this government is putting forth as part of its lobbyists registration legislation, a part of its transparency and openness philosophy, and control of circumstances which would prevent possible corruption of government.

When we see positions such as the Auditor General, such as - the Public Tender Act, even though the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, according to that legislation, is to designate who the person is, that person cannot be fired or have their salary reduced without coming to the House of Assembly. I think what the amendment calls for is recognizing that the registrar of lobbyists is a similar function public-office holder to the Chief Electoral Officer or the Ombudsperson or the person responsible for public accounts, the Auditor General.

I would support that amendment. It certainly gives another layer of importance to it. The Privacy Commissioner is another one. We just talked about that legislation today. According to the resolution of the House today, it was passed. It seems to give it a level of independence that is appropriate to the office. There are a lot of decisions this person has to make with respect to confidentiality and keeping records private to protect - if you go further into the act, the registrar has the power to concern himself or herself with when you have the right to prohibit people from being lobbyists.

If you look at the disciplinary measures in part 5, the commissioner has the right to determine whether a lobbyist has gravely or repeatedly breached obligations, and the commissioner can prohibit the registration of the consultant lobbyist or in-house lobbyists in the registry of lobbyists. So there is a fair degree of power. Unless this is another position in addition to the registrar of lobbyist, that would be a consultant or a commissioner of lobbyists - and perhaps the minister can explain that - the registrar of lobbyists has a fair degree of power and control over this registration and should be considered to be an Officer of the House in order to be properly constituted and acting in a manner that reports to the House of Assembly as opposed to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will not belabour the point, but just to say that I also agree that the minister's comments regarding comparison of this position to the Registrar of Deeds is totally inappropriate. This individual is not merely an administrative person, this person decides who can or cannot be registered, basically, as lobbyists in the Province. This is a discretion that is going to be applied here by this person. Suffice it to say, we have a government here who talks about openness and accountability but they are not prepared to go to the wall and make it complete. They want to retain control of who you appoint to that position. You cannot argue out of one side of your face that we are being open and accountable, and on the other side of your face you are saying: We are open and accountable but we want to name who that person is going to be. We want to control that person, who he is. It does not say anything in this act, for example, about how he can be hired or fired.

You look at section 23 and it is very detailed about the terms of appointment and how he can be removed. That is the other person, not the registrar but the commissioner. It says very explicitly what he can and cannot do. In this section, absolute control is being retained in the Cabinet. That is fine, if that is what you want to do, but you should acknowledge that you want to retain control and that, therefore, you are not being totally, absolutely open and accountable, if you wish to retain the control. You cannot have it both ways. That is the point I am making, is that you are not being consistent with other pieces of legislation we have in this Province. You cannot take the high road on the openness and accountability totally by still wanting to retain control. That is what this is all about, and the Minister of Justice can argue all he wants about this being administrative. It is not only administrative, there are discretionary powers here used by this registrar of lobbyists, and government simply wants to retain control over the appointment. You are not being accountable. I just thought, by this amendment, we might make your legislation go where you claim that it is going.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment to clause 7.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The amendment is defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CLERK: Clause 7.

CHAIR: Clause 7. Shall clause 7 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 7 is carried.

On motion, clause 7 carried.

CLERK: Clause 8.

CHAIR: Clause 8. Shall clause 8 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 8 is carried.

On motion, clause 8 is carried.

CLERK: Clauses 9 to 22.

CHAIR: Clauses 9 to 22. Shall clauses 9 to 22 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 9 to 22 is carried.

On motion, clauses 9 through 22 carried.

CLERK: Clause 23.

CHAIR: Clause 23. Shall clause 23 carry?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, I proposed an amendment here to amend section 23, subsection (1), (3), (4) and (5), to add the words: on a resolution of the House of Assembly.

Again, even in this section it is more obvious what government is doing here, because this person, without question, will be the commissioner of lobbyists. This is the person who decides whether anyone who is registered as a paid lobbyist is conforming to the Code of Ethics that has been imposed, or will be imposed according to the minister, following the Quebec model, basically, in the near future.

There is no question that this is a discretionary position and yet the government again is retaining absolute control over who that person is. Subsection (1), "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall appoint a person under the great seal to be the Commissioner of Lobbyists." Subsection (3), "The person appointed as a commissioner may be removed before the expiration of the term of office by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council for cause." Subsection (5) talks again who we can and cannot employ. We are saying here, out of one side of our mouth, the government is saying: We are going to be open, we are going to be accountable, but we want to pick who the person is going to be to do this job. We want to tell that person how long he is going to work in that job, and if we do not like it we are going to take the person out of it.

If you go back and compare a law that we passed in this Province in the last couple of years concerning the Citizens' Representative and the Child and Youth Advocate - that is section 23 basically - they are almost identical, except in this one right here they just took it out of those acts, the Citizens' Representative and the Child and Youth Advocate, but they left out that little phrase, upon resolution of the House of Assembly. That is where, as the Leader of the Opposition is often saying: To cute by half. They thought that it would go unnoticed, that everything we are going to do here is going to be totally open and transparent, but we will slip this by.

We want to retain control, and ladies and gentlemen of the government, you are not being open, you are not being accountable, when you insist upon wanting to retain the ultimate control. That is why you hear people out in the general public using words like dictatorial. That is where that word comes from, because you say on one hand we are going to do something, but on the other hand you keep the regimes in place so that you can be dictatorial and controlling, and that is not in line with your so-called public statement, that you are open and accountable. You are not even in conformity with other pieces that we have passed in this Province in the last two years which reflect openness and accountability.

I say this again, I will not belabour the point but it is quite obviously that government has intentionally and deliberately left out - in this section 23 which is a totally discretionary piece, this fellow is going to have the total discretion to say who is or is not in compliance with the Code of Ethics. No administrative responsibilities here, absolutely discretionary when it comes to whether you comply as a lobbyist with that Code of Ethics, and government is making sure that they are going to have that control over what that person says about lobbyists in this Province. That is control, that is not openness, and that is why we propose the amendment, so that you can go to the wall and put your money where your mouth is.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to go on record as supporting the amendment with respect to the commissioner. The arguments that were made with respect to the registrar, I know the minister regarded that as an administrative position, and, I guess, if we look at it that way, then we have to look at the commissioner here under part 5 with the power to be in charge of the Code of Conduct and to not only carry out investigations under that. The commissioner where he or she .believes on reasonable grounds that the code has been violated he or she may investigate, and where the commissioner believes there is sufficient reason to proceed can conduct an inquiry. So, this is a person who goes further.

I guess one of the comparisons could be to the federal Ethics Commissioner. There has been a lot of criticism of the federal Ethics Commissioner position because that person is appointed by the Prime Minister and reports to the Prime Minister. A lot of issues with respect to government ethics in Ottawa have been treated with a certain skepticism in the public when this Ethics Commissioner reacts in a certain way. Similarly, here we have a commissioner given the power not only to investigate but to carry out an inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act, appoint investigators, essentially have a hearing and impose discipline on lobbyists to the point of prohibiting them from being registered and cancelling their registration, if the commissioner determines that a consultant or in-house lobbyist has gravely or repeatedly breached the obligations imposed by the act.

These are rather serious consequences and significant powers given to a commissioner under these provisions. To have such a commissioner report to the Cabinet, to be able to be removed by the Cabinet without going near the House of Assembly with respect to that or with respect to an appointment, I believe is inconsistent with other significant office holders of this House who play a role in ensuring that government is free from corruption or the corrupting influences of lobbyists paid to get access to or influence government.

It seems to me, Mr. Chair, that we should support this amendment and ensure that the very simple but few words which say, upon the resolution of the House of Assembly, makes that person a little bit more independent, more able to make their own determinations in the right circumstances. You have to remember, Mr. Chairman, when you are dealing with lobbyists you are going to be dealing with lobbyists who are trying to influence this government. If this government has the kind of control that we are expecting over the position of the commissioner, then there is a conflict of interest there and the government, for its own sake, should be removing itself as arm's-length as possible from the appointment or removal of the commissioner, and use the House of Assembly as a method of showing the public and the commissioner, himself, that they want this commissioner to be independent, to make his or her own decisions based on whatever he or she thinks is best; just as the Privacy Commissioner who we appointed today will do, just as the very independent Citizens' Representative does, just as the independent Chief Electoral Officer does, just as the independent Auditor General does, and just as the independent Child and Youth Advocate does. These are very important offices that provide some arm's-length treatment from the government and provide a service to the public, as officers of the House of Assembly. We should similarly regard the Commissioner of Lobbyists as in the same position.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to the arguments put forward by the hon. members opposite. The government has to appoint people to perform certain duties, but, of course, there are certain people who have to be appointed by the House of Assembly, people who have to be independent and have to be answerable to the House.

The hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi mentioned an Ethics Commissioner, and I agree with him, I think the Ethics Commissioner should be an Officer of the House of Commons, because the job of the Ethics Commissioner is to regulate the activities and behaviors of people who sit in the House of Commons. It is the same with the Auditor General here. The Auditor General's job is to review the financial statements of the government which is controlled by the Cabinet through the House of Assembly. Also, the Citizens's Representative is, of course, an independent person because he is regulating how government deals with the citizens of this Province.

With the Commissioner of Lobbyists, on the other hand, what he is doing is regulating lobbyists. He is not regulating or enforcing what the members of this House do or what the members of the Cabinet do, he is regulating lobbyists. Obviously, in that situation there is no necessity of the commissioner to be an independent person, to be an independent representative to this House, or that this House has to appoint that person. This is certainly a government official that can be appointed by government. We notice that the commissioner is appointed for a term of five years during good behaviour, and cannot be removed during good behaviour but may be removed for cause. If there is a cause for removal then there is a justification to do so.

I disagree with the arguments made by the hon. members opposite, that this is a position that should be independent, that this is a position that should report to the House of Assembly, and I believe the legislation is that right one. The purpose of the legislation, remember, is to control lobbyists. It is to make sure that they report and let the people of this Province know what they are doing.

As I said this afternoon, it is important that behaviour, the lobbying behaviour, the lobbying activity, should be brought out of the shadows so that everybody knows who is being lobbied, who is doing the lobbying, and why.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

It is moved by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile that section 23 be amended, and the amendment would read: That in section 23.(1), (3), (4) and (5), where the words "Lieutenant-Governor in Council" appear, they be replaced with the following, "Lieutenant-Governor in Council, on a resolution of the House of Assembly."

The Chair has allowed the debate to take place because the amendment is in order.

Shall the amendment as put forward by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The amendment is defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall clause 23 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 23 is carried.

On motion, clause 23 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 24 to 36.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 24 to 36 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 24 to 36 are carried.

On motion, clauses 24 through 36 carried.

CHAIR: That is Bill 43, with the exception of clause 4.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 62 and Bill 66 passed without amendment, and progress made on Bill 43, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 62, An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act, and Bill 66, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999, passed without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bill be read a third time?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

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

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 66, amendments to the Law Society Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair, not hearing any objection to proceeding to third reading, assumes there is consent.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

It is moved and seconded that Bill 66, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 66 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999. (Bill 66)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill 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 Law Society Act, 1999," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 66)

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

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

I move third reading of Bill 62, An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Again, the Chair assumes there is consent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Consent granted with leave.

It is moved and seconded that Bill 62, An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 62 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act. (Bill 62)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper." (Bill 62)

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

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

I want to give notice of our intention to introduce Bill 68, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Pensions Act.

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

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

I want to move, by consent and by leave, first reading of Bill 68.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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 Members Of The House Of Assembly Pensions Act.

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'.

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Pensions Act," carried. (Bill 68)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a first time. Is it the pleasure of the House the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Pensions Act, (Bill 68)

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Now, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, Bill 68 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

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

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

I move second reading of Bill 68.

MR. SPEAKER: I assume consent has been granted.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

It is moved and seconded that Bill 68, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Pensions Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Pensions Act." (Bill 68)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This act is, I guess, to correct an anomaly, basically, where the Deputy Speaker of the House now is treated, under the act, as a minister and in the same category as the Leader of the Opposition, and has no specific privileges of these including staffing or any remuneration to that and any of the basic privileges there, and he is treated under that position for pension purposes.

It is appropriate and evolution has occurred since in the House where Parliamentary Secretaries now are treated not as ministers. The Deputy Speaker is in the same category as Parliamentary Secretaries, for instance, the Opposition House Leader and some of these positions, and it should appropriately reflect that. For that reason we have put forth this particular bill.

I am going to move in Committee, Mr. Speaker, an amendment there on a section in clause 2, but at this time I will just comment on the nature behind this, to put, in all fairness, that people receiving remuneration with similar privileges and so on, should be treated the same for pension purposes, and that is that purpose of correcting this one here in the act. That was one of the thrusts behind the pension act that we moved, too, with the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union, because other unions had it. It is a very similar type that we think creates equity at least above people that are in the same category.

Thank you.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have no difficulty with Bill 68 and appreciate the rational put forward by the Minister of Finance. We will be supportive of Bill 68. I understand he is going to move an amendment in Committee stage.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I accept the explanation of the Minister of Finance, that this will indeed provide consistency between office holders, that for the purposes of the pension act, the Speaker of the House of Assembly and the Leader of the Opposition only are treated the same as Cabinet ministers, for the purposes of pensions and other matters. For some reason in the past, the Deputy Speaker was included in that although, for all other purposes, they are not treated the same as a minister for the purposes of salary and other benefits. This is a consistency that for some reason was overlooked in the past, and I support the amendment to the act on that basis.

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

If the minister speaks now he will close debate.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the Leader of the New Democratic Party and the Opposition House Leader for recognizing and agreeing with this. I think it is an appropriate action, and certainly we thank them for their co-operation.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Pensions Act, Bill 68.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

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

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

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

I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole to consider matters relevant to Bill 68.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Bill 68.

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 said bill?

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 (Harding): Order, please!

Bill 68, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Pensions Act.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Clause 2.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I hope to solve (inaudible) on clause 2. I am going to move an amendment, seconded by my colleague here, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that we delete clause 2.

CHAIR: It has been moved by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board that clause 2 be deleted.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

On motion, clause 2 deleted.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Pensions Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill passed with amendments?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move 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'.

Motion carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 68 passed with amendment.

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 Bill 68, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Pensions Act, pass with some amendment.

When shall the report be received? Now?

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

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again presently, by leave.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: The first reading of an amendment to Bill 68.

On motion, amendment read a first time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: Second reading of amendment to Bill 68.

On motion, amendment read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall Bill 68 be read a third time?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move third reading of Bill 68.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair assumes there is consent and leave. By leave?

It is moved and seconded that Bill 68, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Pensions Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 68 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Pensions Act. (Bill 68)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Pensions Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 68)

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

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

Before moving the adjournment motion, I do want to give notice, in accordance with Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn tomorrow at 5:30 in the afternoon and give further notice, according to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 tomorrow evening.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I do want to compliment members on a very productive parliamentary day and I do now move the House adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that this House do now adjourn until tomorrow, Tuesday at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

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