November 24, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 36


The House met at 1: 30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we are very pleased to welcome to the public galleries twelve students from the St. John's Learning Centre, with their instructor Ms Ann Buckle.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Members' statements this afternoon are as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for District of St. John's Centre; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley; and the hon. the Member for the District of Labrador West.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week, I attended a function at Baccalieu Collegiate in Old Perlican for the launch of high-speed Internet that will connect thirty communities in my district to the global economy. Approximately 6,500 residents, including businesses, will be able to avail of this service.

Mr. Speaker, a world of opportunity has now unfolded. The implementation of this high-speed Internet will enrich the educational experience of our students and educators alike. As well, the marketing and trading opportunities and the expansion of business ideas is limitless. The commercial potential that will be provided for our business community is unimaginable.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Eastern School Board District, Persona, Industry Canada, and the Mariners Resource Opportunities Network Inc. for sponsoring the advancement of broadband in my District of Trinity-Bay de Verde.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to quote Ms Gillian Lockyer, a Level III student of Baccalieu Collegiate, who spoke of what this opportunity meant to her. I feel that Gillian certainly described what this means to our area when she said, "I am extremely grateful that rural areas of Newfoundland and Labrador are getting benefits such as Broadband to expand our possibilities for the future. I believe this is the beginning of something bigger than we have ever imagined."

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my congratulations to Staff Cadet Ashley Tarrant of Lawn on being selected HMCS Acadia's new Chief of Sea Operations this past summer.

The seventeen-year-old cadet from the Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps 237 Truxtun in Lawn was appointed to the position with a promotion to Chief Petty Officer Second Class following an extensive interview and selection process.

As Chief of Sea Operations at HMCS Acadia, Canada's largest Sea Cadet Training Centre located in Cornwallis, Nova Scotia, Chief Tarrant was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Sea Operations department and for the supervision and administration of thirty staff cadets at the training centre.

Chief Petty Officer Tarrant, presently the Coxswain of RCSCC237 Truxtun, is the daughter of Maurice and Charmaine Tarrant of Lawn. Chief Petty Officer Tarrant graduated Level III at Holy Name of Mary Academy in Lawn with honours and is presently in her first year of studies at Memorial University of Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Chief Petty Officer Tarrant and extend her best wishes in all future endeavours.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure this past fall of participating in the eighth anniversary of the Unveiling of the Merchant Navy Memorial.

Each year, September 3, is recognized as Merchant Navy Veterans Day. The monument is located at the main entrance to the Marine Institute on Ridge Road and was erected to commemorate the men and women who lost their lives in World War II. St. John's Harbour was the home port for naval vessels which provided convoy protection on the North Atlantic. This port was a safe haven for torpedo damaged ships. Crews from torpedoed ships of the Allied Merchant Navies were landed here found a haven of rest until they returned to their home ports or shipped out as crew on other ships.

Merchant Navies played a critical role in both World Wars, transporting war materials, troops, fuel and ammunition throughout the world. The ships were called on to assist in evacuation and troop landings. An estimated 60,000 Allied Merchant Navy men and women lost their lives assuring a reliable flow of goods across the Atlantic.

The Merchant Navy was a volunteer organization. Without uniforms to identify them on shore, these crews did not enjoy the special treatment and respect that uniformed officers could expect.

On Remembrance Day every year, we honour our war veterans and those who sacrificed their lives. The Merchant Navy is seldom included in these services, however, due in part to the non-military status of the Navy. It is time to recognize the contribution made to the war by the Merchant Navy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today to recognize Mr. Philip Lundrigan of Spaniard's Bay, who was named the recipient of the Glen Hillson Award for Excellence at the general meeting of the Canadian Treatment Action Council in Moncton.

Canadian Treatment Action Council, the CTAC, is a national organization serving the needs of people living with HIV/AIDS. CTAC promotes informed public policy, public education, as well as awareness on issues that impact on access to treatment and health care for people living with HIV/AIDS.

Mr. Lundrigan is a founding member of the CTAC . He served as Secretary of the Board from 1996 to 2001 and is Vice-Chair of the Board from 2002 to 2005. As the provincial representative to the CTAC Council for Newfoundland and Labrador, Philip founded the Newfoundland and Labrador People with AIDS Network.

Mr. Speaker, Philip Lundrigan's outstanding contribution to improving the health and lives of people with HIV/AIDS nationally is matched by his equally important work at home here in Newfoundland and Labrador. This award has only been received previously by the hon. Allan Rock.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Mr. Philip Lundrigan, recipient of the Glen Hillson Award of Excellence.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the accomplishments of the students of Xavier Junior High in Deer Lake for their efforts in their Clean and Green project. Their achievements received national attention in early October when the town received the Maglin Youth Involvement Project Award sponsored by the Communities in Bloom Program.

Xavier's schoolyard naturalization project received $7,000 in funding from Clarica and involved over 250 students in constructing benches, flower and rock gardens, and planting various trees and shrubs around the school grounds. Encouraged by support from local businesses and the Deer Lake Community Improvements Committee, students broadened their efforts beyond the schoolyard, organizing initiatives such annual beach and town centre cleanups.

These young men and women offer a shining example of dedication to their community and concern for their environment. I ask all members to join with me in congratulating them for their tremendous accomplishments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate teacher, Paul Smith and his Grade 7 Tech-Ed Class at JRS Middle School in Wabush.

During National Bullying Awareness Week the students and Mr. Smith undertook a project, from scratch, to make brilliant red stop signs with the main slogan: Stop Bullying, on top with a message underneath. Some of the messages include: Appreciate Goodness; Reach out to a Person in Need; Understand the Other Side; and Be Nice to Someone.

Mr. Speaker, we hear all too often the problems many students face from bullying, sometimes with tragic outcomes. It is certainly good to hear of students and teachers dealing with this problem head on and in their own environment.

Mr. Speaker, the signs will become permanent fixture's in the school by being posted throughout the hallways as a constant reminder that JRS Middle School is determined to be a bully-free zone where students respect each other. This is important, Mr. Speaker, because when initiatives like this take place in a school setting they tend to carry over to the outside school hours, improving the social life for all students.

Mr. Speaker, every person - man, woman and child - has a right to a bully-free environment. I ask all members of the House of Assembly to join me in applauding the leadership of Mr. Paul Smith and his Grade 7 class at JRS and wish the best to all students during this academic year.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker would like to extend a welcome as well this afternoon to some other visitors. I notice in looking around the public gallery, to my left I see Mr. Scott Simms, the MP for Bonavista-Gander-Grand Falls-Windsor. Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: In the Speaker's gallery this afternoon we have a very special guest. I am pleased to welcome Ms Ruth Flowers, the interim Speaker for the new District of Nunatsiavut. Ms Flowers is visiting our Assembly in preparation for her new role with the new Inuit government. As some members already know, the legislative capital of Nunatsiavut will be in Hopedale, while the administrative capital will be in Nain. The new government and new assembly assume their new roles on Thursday, December 1. We wish Ms Flowers, the new Speaker, all the best in her position and I have assured her that all members of this House and our professional staff will assist her in any manner we can.

Again, congratulations Ms Flowers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Ms Flowers is accompanied by Marilyn Butland, with Perry & Butland Communications.

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity today to inform hon. members on the signing of a federal-provincial agreement that will bring major investment into community infrastructure throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

This morning I was joined by Scott Simms, MP for Bonavista-Gander-Grand Falls-Windsor and Wayne Ruth, President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities to announce the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund Agreement. This agreement will introduce a total of $84 million and will be a cost-shared initiative between the federal, provincial and municipal governments. The provincial investment will be in a range of $28 million to $35 million over the next four years.

In order for our communities to develop and prosper we must have reliable infrastructure. The provincial, federal and municipal partnership demonstrated by today's announcement speaks to a long-term commitment from all levels of government. Our combined goal is to strengthen infrastructure throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, reaching this agreement was not an easy process. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador insisted that program guidelines include water system expansions and upgrades. We also had to negotiate changes to the draft agreement that would give this government flexibility to assume part of the municipal share of costs where warranted. Our insistence on these terms resulted in a negotiation process that was lengthy and difficult but in the end a tremendous success.

Municipalities will play a major role in the distribution of the funding announced today. The Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities will give strategic direction and identify priorities under this program.

Mr. Speaker, we are looking forward to working with municipalities as government continues to do everything it can to guide communities towards economic prosperity. We will continue to assist communities to identify and implement long-term solutions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the member for an advance copy of his statement. Anytime that you have a joint arrangement, like you have here between the provincial government, the federal government and the municipalities, for new infrastructure in the Province, it is great. I had the opportunity myself to be involved in some of these.

In the minister's statement it says over the four years, but I have a backgrounder which says that it will run from the signing of the agreement and will end on March 31, 2012. So, is it four or seven? If it is four, then obviously there is a larger amount of money to be spent over the four-year period, but if it is seven then it is somewhat less. Having said that, any new dollars that go into the Province, into the municipalities, is a benefit.

In another paragraph he was talking about where the government insisted on some flexibility to assume some of the costs of the municipal councils. That is great. Being a former minister myself, there were programs where we helped smaller municipalities, like under the ministry of HRE, such as in the Town of Burlington where we picked up about 90 per cent of the municipality's costs. We did it for many other smaller communities around. That is the only way that the program can work. I see it is important that the minister has agreed that will continue, and I want to applaud him on that particular part.

Anytime that we have new money going into the Province in new infrastructure, that is great, and I want to thank the minister for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is good news when municipalities are going to be afforded the type of money that will allow them to do the things that are needed within their communities.

For a long time now, Mr. Speaker, we have heard many communities around this Province - I think it was over 200 - who are on boil water orders, no fit water to consume. That is something, Mr. Speaker, that has to change. We all know what happened in place like Ontario where we have had disasters associated with unfit drinking water. These are things that the municipalities will now hopefully be able to do.

There is also the issue, Mr. Speaker, of raw sewage going out into all of the harbours and bays around this Province. It is something that is obviously a disaster for many of the communities around.

With initiatives like this, Mr. Speaker, hopefully some of these things can be held in check and improved and cleaned up.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My first question is for the Minister of Transportation and Works.

Mr. Speaker, two years ago the Town of Botwood wrote a letter to the former Minister of Transportation and Works regarding port divestiture in that town. They did not get a meeting with the former minister or receive what they consider to be a satisfactory response to their letter. We have been asked by the Town of Botwood to ask the current Minister of Transportation and Works: Will you give the commitment today that you will arrange a meeting with the town to discuss this port divestiture?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Exploits raised this issue with me last week, shortly after becoming minister. I have had a discussion with the deputy minister and assistant deputy minister on this matter, Mr. Speaker. To my understanding, there was some problem with a letter that had been sent to the Town of Botwood and the - (inaudible) town, but the federal government as it relates to the port divestiture. We have had a discussion on it. I have indicated to the Member for Exploits that I have no problem meeting with representatives from Botwood on this matter; however, Mr. Speaker, we are redrafting a letter right now and hopefully the letter will be satisfactory and a meeting may not be required.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you for the response, Minister.

Mr. Speaker, the rest of my questions are to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the federal government announced -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I guess the former Fisheries Minister, the Minister of Transportation and Works, will answer these. It is rather confusing here at times, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Yesterday, the federal government announced their intentions related to the income trust in this country. Now that the federal government has brought more certainty to the issue, does the minster feel, or has he been given any indication, that FPI will move forward with their income trust proposal?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Following the passage of the legislation earlier this year, lawyers for the department and for FPI have been negotiating the implementation of the term sheet into a contract. That matter is not completed as yet. We have not heard from the solicitors for FPI since they announced that they were going to do a review. So we have not heard from FPI, at least I am not aware of any communications from FPI, with respect to the income trust since the federal Finance Minister's announcement this morning.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You wonder why we get confused about who we should be asking questions of.

Mr. Speaker, this one is for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Last spring, the Minister of Fisheries and the Premier implemented a Raw Material Sharing system without any consultation and against the wishes of harvesters in this Province. As a result, the crab fishery was late starting and it was one of the reasons that contributed to an overall decrease in the landed value of fish products in this Province by some $200 million. The Premier, as a result of protests at the time, finally committed to establish a committee, headed by Richard Cashin, to examine the RMS, Raw Material Sharing system. The Premier also stated that he would abide by the recommendation of Mr. Cashin.

I ask the minister: Will the government honour this commitment, and has the government received a preliminary report from Mr. Cashin?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yes, we will honour the recommendations that will be brought forward by Mr. Cashin; and, unless it has happened since I left the Petten Building to move over to the West Block, I am not aware of any preliminary report being provided to government by Mr. Cashin. We anticipate Mr. Cashin's report within a week or two.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, after talking to hundreds of fish harvesters and some of the plant owners in the Province, it is my understanding that Mr. Cashin will recommend the scrapping of this disastrous and ill-conceived Raw Material Sharing plan in favour of a strengthened Final Offer Selection model that was implemented by, I think, the Minister of Fisheries, John Efford, back in 1997.

I ask the minister: If this is what Mr. Cashin recommends, will the government or the minister force processors to participate in this model the same way as this government forced harvesters to participate in the RMS system?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the member might well remember, the RMS system, whether he considers it ill-conceived or not, came about on his watch and on the watch of the person who came immediately after him, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. It came forward in a couple of reports, both commissioned by this Opposition when they were the government. That is where Raw Material Sharing came from, after very extensive consultations by Mr. Dunne, Mr. Jones -

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: - and others, and Mr. Vardy and so on and so on.

Mr. Speaker, we said we would honour Mr. Cashin's recommendations. We will honour Mr. Cashin's recommendations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, I can guarantee you that no one on this side of the House ever came up with the Raw Material Sharing plan, and I will guarantee you there was no one on this side of the House who forced it upon the fishermen in this Province against their wishes. There is only one minister who can take credit for that and he is the one who was just speaking.

Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Cashin recommends the Final Offer Selection model, as I am apt to believe that he will: Will the Minister of Fisheries or the Minister of Labour have to change the legislation to implement it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we do not know if we will have to change the legislation. We do not know if we will have to create a new Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. We do not know what we will have to do until we get Mr. Cashin's report. When we get Mr. Cashin's report we will undertake to take whatever measures and whatever legislative amendments are required to bring about the changes that Mr. Cashin recommends. That is it. We said it last spring, we said it here previously this week. I said it a couple of minutes ago. I am saying it again now and if he asks me the same question again, I will say it again, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is not telling us anything new when he says he does not know much.

Mr. Speaker, under the old Final Offer Selection model, processors could back out of the model by giving sufficient notice to government. All they had to do was say we do not want in the model, give sufficient notice and they could back out of the model.

Will the minister ensure that if the legislation is changed so that processors will not be able to back out of the program, throwing the fishery back into chaos like he did last year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when we get the report we will act on the report, unlike the previous Administration who got reports and did not act on them. Mr. Speaker, when we get reports we act on them. When Mr. Cashin provides us with the report, we will take the report and we will implement it. Whatever is required to make it possible to implement that report, Mr. Speaker, that is what will be done. That is what the Premier said last spring, that is what I said last spring, that is what all the government said last spring. That is what I said just now. I said it previously. If he asks me the same question in fifteen minutes time, I will say it again because he obviously cannot hear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, he said a lot of things that he was going to do. He actually said to the fish harvesters of this Province that he was going to consult with them. We know what happened to that commitment he made.

Mr. Speaker, any legislative change that is required to get our fishery open in April of next year will have to come to this House of Assembly before the session closes for Christmas, as the House, as we all know, will not be scheduled to come back until the end of March.

I ask the Minister: Will you assure those involved in the fishing industry, the most important industry in our Province, will you assure the people involved in that industry that any necessary legislative changes, changes that will ensure the fishery opens in a timely and orderly manner, will be done before this session closes for Christmas?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is up to the Opposition when they close the House and it is up to government when we call the House. So, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any undertaking that we will provide the legislation before Christmas, but if we require legislative amendments in order to bring this season about, I am sure that they will be done.

Mr. Speaker, if we have to come back in January, we will come back in January; if we have to come back in February, we will come back in February; if we have to come back in March, we will come back in March. We will be ready to do the legislative amendments if required, Mr. Speaker. The question is: Will the Opposition be available?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: You don't have to worry about that, I say to the minister. You will not have to worry about that. But, I am glad to see that you said you would open the House immediately if it was required so that we can get the fishery open in a timely and orderly fashion next spring, because we certainly do not want to see a repeat of what you caused last spring.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the disastrous fishery experienced by many this year, partially created by the former minister, the minister who is answering the questions today, many harvesters and crew members have left the Province while others are facing a very difficult winter with little or no income.

I ask the minister: What measures is your government taking to deal with this must unfortunate circumstance?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, in the fishing industry in this Province, as is the case in other jurisdictions in Atlantic Canada and other jurisdictions in this world, if he wanted to read the editorial in the Telegram this morning, I think it was this morning, he might see that very similar situation is being encountered in Australia.

Mr. Speaker, this situation, while he may want to blame it on RMS - and he did say that it was only partially because of RMS - the fact of the matter is, the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador is undergoing major structural change. Mr. Speaker, what has to be done is both levels of government engage in an early retirement program, a rationalization program for the fleet, as has been indicated and supported by the FFAW. Mr. Speaker, those are the types of things that have to be done to get long-term, lasting benefits for the people in the industry, not just short-term stop gap measures that the previous Administration is good at.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: I thank the minister for his answer because he just said that he is doing nothing to help these people through this winter. That is what you just said. You are looking for a long-term solution. You were talking about that when you were over here in Opposition three years ago, or two years, you are still talking about it.

Mr. Speaker, in my discussions with fish harvesters and crew members, they are suggesting that an extension to employment benefits may be an acceptable solution to the problems they are experiencing today; not tomorrow or next year, or ten years from now, today. They think that is an acceptable solution.

I ask the minister: Have you or your government made any representation to the federal government on their behalf with regard to that issue?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have made representation to the federal government on adjustment measures for the fishery, generally. We have talked to the federal government about the need for a fleet rationalization program. We have talked to the federal government about a need for an early retirement program to bring lasting benefits to the people in the industry and do a lasting rationalization and a lasting restructuring of the industry. That is what we have done.

As a former Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, I heard him on many occasions, Mr. Speaker, indicate how difficult and virtually impossible it is to get an extension to E.I. benefits. The same type of request was made several years ago when ice hampered the startup of the lobster fishery on the West Coast and he would only have to refer back to his response at that time to find out the answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transportation and Works must not read his own accident reports. He again quoted in today's paper, stating that the highway equipment from Placentia broke down that morning when his own department's accident report - which I have a copy of - indicates the equipment broke down four days earlier, on November 9, and left the repair shop on November 15. This piece of equipment was never on the road November 14, as the minister indicated.

With current ice control needs and winter storms possibly any day, can the minister tell the House if the entire fleet is now ready, parts available on site at depots, and all winter equipment and staff in place, not the 80 per cent the minister was so proudly claiming?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the vehicle was on the road. Now, he can say what he likes. The vehicle was on the road. I have the report from the supervisor saying that. My assistant deputy minister talked to the operator of the vehicle this morning. The vehicle left the highway's depot in Placentia at 7:30, based on an assessment of the road that was done between 7:00 and 7:15 when ice was found; not as was indicated by the Member for Bay of Island yesterday and again today. The vehicle was on the road, Mr. Speaker.

Now, the shop repair report that he refers to indicates that there was maintenance done on the vehicle on the ninth and tenth, Mr. Speaker. The equipment that needed to be replaced on the fifteenth, as I understand it, was the snowplow; the wing and the strobe lights. That is not required, the last time I checked, for sanding and salting operations, Mr. Speaker. The vehicle was on the road.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I just say to the minister, the truck never even left the shop until November 15th.

MR. TAYLOR: Wrong! Wrong! (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: It is right on the report when it left the shop. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, that all the equipment is not ready.

I had calls as late as this morning indicating that essential equipment is still broken down and they are still waiting for parts to arrive and be installed. This morning I received calls from three different depots.

Can the minister explain why parts are not being stocked at maintenance depots and why equipment is not ready at this time of year when snow and ice cause serious safety threats.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, our fleet of snow clearing and ice control equipment is at a state of readiness equivalent to, or in excess of, what it has been in recent years. I cannot speak for going back in history very far, but certainly over the past five or six years. Based on what has been shown to me, based on the percentages available, right now, Mr. Speaker, we are practically at 100 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Practically.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, well you are never at 100 per cent, Mr. Speaker, vehicles break down. I drove back across the Island three weeks ago in a car and I lost the motor three miles west of Whitbourne, and I didn't know there was anything wrong with it before that. These things happen, Mr. Speaker. That happens.

Mr. Speaker, our fleet is ready, our employees are back with the exception of twenty-seven people. Seven of those people, as I understand it, out of over 400, are loader operators and twenty are people who are being replaced as a result of people who retired or left the department over the past year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister was saying that everybody was back. Why are we now, in the middle of winter, waiting to call back twenty-seven people? Obviously the department is just not ready.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, staff in the department are calling us daily to confirm that the ill-conceived winterization of depots compromised the summer maintenance program and prevented equipment from being ready for the winter season. Mayors have complained, and media have reported, equipment still waiting for parts and repairs.

Will the minister, on behalf of the safety of the Province, commit to undertaking a review of this ill-conceived winterization plan and commit to reinstating all depots on a year-round basis?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I just don't know how hard it is to get something through the Member for Bay of Island's head. I don't know how hard it is to get it through.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is, the closure of thirteen depots in the summer has nothing to do with the equipment that is available in the winter. The people who repair the vehicles - the mechanics, the equipment technicians - are people who are on the job right now, who were on the job this summer, who were on the job last fall, and were on the job last summer.

Those are the facts. Now, he can spin it however he would like, and he can try to make mountains out of molehills, and whatever, but the fact of the matter is that the people who repaired the equipment in 2004, 2003 and 2002, in July, August, September, October and November, were on the job in 2005.

Mr. Speaker, those are the facts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just have one question for the Minister Responsible for Labour.

Minister, the workers and the economy of the Stephenville area have been on hold for months while we await the future regarding their mill. I am wondering if the minister has received any requests from either the company, Abitibi, or from the union, to assist with the stalled talks up to this point; and, if not, are you prepared to undertake that you would contact the company and the union to at least offer whatever assistance your department and your officials might in trying to unravel this most unfortunate but serious situation?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it was some time late last week that a representative from the union contacted our office and asked what would the process be of asking for a mediator or arbitrator if it came to the point where, between the unionized employees and the representatives and the company officials, they felt that they would require it.

I informed, on behalf of the government, the unionized representatives what the process would be if they requested a mediator through this process; I explained the process to them. They appreciated that and, to my knowledge, they have not availed of that request, or they have not made that request to the department yet.

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 Education.

There has been a report prepared for the Eastern School District covering issues such as zoning, busing, school reorganization, a very comprehensive and major report which I understand the school district has had since the end of August or early September.

Is the minister prepared to make this report public and available to the people of the Province as it affects schools on the Avalon, Burin and Bonavista Peninsulas, some 70 per cent of the school children in the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, there is a comprehensive report being done by a consultant, and I haven't had a copy of this report up to this time. The report will be tabled at the next school board meeting, Eastern School Board meeting, which I understand is scheduled for December 7. As it is tabled at that meeting, which will be a public meeting, it will become a public report and will be available to anyone who wants a copy of that report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can the Minister of Education advise the House how many members of her Administration, or her caucus, have been briefed on this report by the Director of the Eastern School District, who was a former Tory candidate in the last election?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give an exact number of how many officials within the Department of Education may have been working with the consultant or have been briefed on the report. I would understand that they must be providing information, working with the consultant. I am completely unaware if any caucus members have been briefed on the contents of that report at this time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can the minister advise how it is that the Minister of Municipal Affairs could have a meeting with school councils in his district, talk about this report, and practically announce a new school for his district based on the findings of this report?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, based upon what happened in the past with the education reform with the Opposition, which were the government at the time, there was nothing but mass confusion happening with respect to education reform.

I had no briefing, Mr. Speaker, none at all whatsoever, with respect to the document that the member refers to. I called a meeting, and had a meeting last night with four school councils in my district, telling them that this report will be forthcoming, that it will be made public some time in December, as I know of, and that I wanted to get together with them after the report was made public to address the concerns and work with them to address any concerns that may be made public at that point in time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and advise the group that he had met on two occasions, at least, with the school director.

Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Education -

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

MR. SPEAKER: As the hon. the minister would know, we usually do not take points of order during Question Period. Maybe I would suggest that we could defer and let the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi ask another question.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question was whether the director had met with Members of the House of Assembly, in particular the Minister of Municipal Affairs, but I would like to ask the minister: Will she confirm that her government's policy is to support -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Will the minister confirm that she and her government stand by the policy of community schools in rural Newfoundland -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - and neighbourhood schools in urban areas, as was the purpose of the whole issue of denominational education (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Again, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is making accusations that he cannot back up because they cannot be backed up.

Mr. Speaker, here is the reality of the situation. I know it is Question Period, but the reality of the situation is simply this: I have had meetings with school board members over the number of years that I have been in this House of Assembly to discuss the concerns in my district. There has been a major busing issue in my district since last year. I met with the previous Chair, I have met with the present Chair, to try to get that resolved, and that is what the discussion was about, Mr. Speaker. Nothing more, nothing less.

He should apologize.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, some of the most vulnerable in our society are being negatively impacted by the high price of heating their homes. When the government announced their Home Heating Fuel Rebate, they left thousands of poor and middle-income earners in this Province out in the cold.

I ask the minister: Will he listen to the public outcry and expand the rebate program to include those using electricity and other sources of fuel to heat their homes?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The rebate program we announced is the highest in the entire country in rebating people - putting it in the hands and the pockets of people - on fuel, number one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Secondly, in the last two years, electricity has risen by $388 more to help people heat their home. That is the extra cost. It has risen by $1,058, the increased amount of heating it by home heating fuel. It is three times as much. We are going to compensate people under home heating fuel up to $400 of net income. That could be $37,000 of gross income. It could be $35,000 of gross income. Net income is what counts. You could make more than thirty, get a rebate.

We have done it to address people, particularly people who are hardest hit, low-income people. Unlike the federal program that is tied to a guaranteed income supplement, we raised it significantly high, way above that amount. It is not close to what any other province in this country has put forth. It is the most compassionate and most direct home heating program offered, to my knowledge, in the history of this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, he should remember his own private member's motion when he was in Opposition, about including electricity when the Home Heating Fuel Rebate was issued before.

Mr. Speaker, the minister may be proud to balance the government's budget, but he should not forget the thousands of poor people around this Province who are finding it difficult to balance their budgets this year.

I ask the minister: Will he expand this program to include the working poor and middle-income earners who are finding themselves in a financially difficult position due to the high cost of heating fuels?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, when we dealt with a private member's resolution in this House there was no difference in the increase and escalation of home heating fuel costs and electricity costs. Since that time, home heating costs have skyrocketed and electricity gone up close to the price of inflation -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, if they do not want to hear the answer....

Over the last seven years, electricity has marginally exceeded, per year, the amount of inflation on any goods or services. Food has gone up; other services have gone up. It has gone up in a reasonable line. The reason why is because it has skyrocketed, home heating fuel, creating a lot of hardships for people in this Province.

What we have done is, we have taken an action to address that, Mr. Speaker, and the program is far beyond what any other province in this country has done in direct input back to people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, what a short distance walk across this House can change when someone is fighting for something.

Yesterday, government unveiled an insufficient program that it claims will help low-income earners with energy efficiency in their homes. Most of the people he is targeting cannot afford to fed themselves, Mr. Speaker, and will certainly not have the money available to take part in this program. Government is flushed with cash from high energy prices.

Will the minister come forward with a better plan for low-income individuals and expand the program announced yesterday to assist the working poor and middle-income earners dealing with high energy costs?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, our government is dealing with low-income people across the whole spectrum. We introduced an income tax for people, families below $19,000 income and $11,500 single, no income tax of a provincial nature. We have increased supplements to low-income people. We have introduced, under Income Support, an increase for single parents and single people living with low incomes, an increase.

Mr. Speaker, we are developing now a poverty strategy to look at the whole spectrum of low-income people, how we can address the needs of these people in a very comprehensive manner across all aspects of health and education, across income and other areas, and you will see some of these aspects rolled out in the next budget, what this government is doing to combat poverty and deal with people - when a government did nothing but freeze rates for a number of years, and did absolutely nothing to address low-income people in this Province.

We are going to take action, Mr. Speaker. It will be comprehensive, it will be detailed, and it will deal with the underlying cause of poverty in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have time for one very quick supplementary.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will go directly to the question. I ask the minister: Will government consider helping the many non-profit and volunteer groups around this Province who are having to cut short the good work they do because of high fuel prices?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we deal with numerous groups, numerous agencies out there. We provide funding in many of these instances. Funding varies from year to year based on need. Every single individual group out there deals with respect to departments. Are we going to carte blanche, blanket, throw money at something without looking at individual causes? The answer is no, but we are aware. We have advanced -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we have advanced funds and we are looking at dealing with the increased cost of heating all over the Province, whether it is in government buildings, whether it is in hospitals, whether it is people driving vehicles across the Province. We have looked at a lot of things. We are giving serious consideration to a whole variety of things, and the impact that high fuel price are having on people in this Province and low-income people. We have made tremendous progress on numerous issues that have not been touched for years, and we are going to make more progress because we want to move this Province from one that has the highest poverty rate that we inherited from that government, in this country, and we want to move it to the lowest in this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. It is unparliamentary in this House of Assembly or any Legislature for one member to impugn the motives of another member. During Question Period today, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi impugned motives on myself as the Member for Cape St. Francis.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi either to back up what he said, produce the evidence of what he said, or stand up and withdraw and/or apologize.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, speaking to a point of privilege.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know if I am entitled to speak to a point of privilege; it sounds more like a point of order. What I will say is that the member should read Hansard before he suggests that I am impugning his motives. I did not impugn anybody's motives. I just ask questions, and the ministers choose to get up and answer them in a certain way. I do not feel I have said anything that either impugns his motives, accuses him of anything, or suggests that anything I had said requires an apology.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, speaking to the point of privilege.

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

The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi presented to this House today a fact that he presented as a fact. The record will show he said to the Minister of Municipal Affairs: You said at the meeting last night. Now, Mr. Speaker, the question that begs to be answered, and I guess what the Minister of Municipal Affairs has before you for consideration - the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi knows this, that if you are going to stand in the House and present a question which really amounts to, when did you stop beating your child last, because that is the type of question he asked, imputing a motive on the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and put forward a fact to this House as if he was there when he was not, he has a responsibility to either back up his allegation and lay the evidence right here so people can see it, or go out and say: Well, I just asked a question and I don't mind putting innuendo on a person's integrity and character in this House. It can only be one or the other, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly don't wish to intercede on behalf of the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Leader of the NDP. I am sure he needs no defense from myself, he is quite capable of defending himself, but I think his suggestion is immanently reasonable. Rather than get into a he said-she said thing here, perhaps we might, I would suggest, wait for the printing of Hansard and then we will all be in a position to see what was or was not said, and we will be in a better position to deal with it, rather than dealing with it quickly, without proper consideration and thought as to what was or was not said.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, speaking to the point of privilege.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With all due respect to the Government House Leader, this is not a court of law and you don't have to be an eye witness to something to bring it up in the House. If that were the case, we wouldn't talk about very much in this House of Assembly.

Whatever facts were contained in what I said were not denied by the minister. We should all read Hansard and calm down and decide whether or not there is a point of order or privilege of any kind.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will review Hansard and if necessary the video tape, to find out exactly what was said and will report back to the House hopefully by the session on Monday afternoon of next week.

MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees. Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Section 26(5)(a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling one Order-in-Council relating to a funding pre-commitment for the 2006-2007 fiscal year.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Tabling of Documents. Notices of Motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is asking for Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday in Questions Period, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair asked the Minister of Health and Community Services a question about radiation equipment at the Health Sciences Centre in St. John's. The minister indicated to the member that he would report back to the House on this particular matter.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has been in touch with the Eastern Regional Integrated Health Authority and has been informed that this was a planned shutdown to install new pieces of radiation equipment which would increase capacity for cancer patients. In order to install the necessary equipment to provide this service, Eastern Health has had to renovate an existing treatment area in the same room that houses equipment to treat skin cancer. Given that it was a planned shutdown, Eastern Health was proactive in arranging either alternate treatment or rescheduling some patients for a later date. Those patients deemed by the treating physicians to require immediate treatment are receiving it through the use of other radiation equipment. Those patients deemed by the physician as medically able to wait for treatment are being rescheduled.

Mr. Speaker, the member asked about the number of people who are impacted by this. Eastern Health advises that a total of eighteen people are impacted by that room closure. Four patients are waiting for treatment. However, as previously stated, if there is any concern expressed by the attending physician, alternate treatment is available. Eight have preliminary markings done and will be treated when the room reopens, and the remaining six are to be simulated tomorrow and they will be scheduled for treatment after the simulation is complete or are waiting for further assessment by their physician.

Mr. Speaker, these treatments are classified as superficial treatments and is not considered to be a significant problem by the physician or the cancer centre. The renovation is expected to be completed by a week from Monday coming.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further answers to questions for which notice has been given?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I was engaged in a conversation with my colleagues across the floor when you went to Notices of Motion. I did want to make two Notices of Motion, so I would ask my colleagues in the House just for leave for a moment.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I want to give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Denturists. (Bill 60)

Also, I want to give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS subsection 4(1) of the Child and Youth Advocate Act provides "The Office of the Child and Youth Advocate shall be filled by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council on a resolution of the House of Assembly."

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Ms Darlene Neville be appointed as the Child and Youth Advocate.

I just want to give notice of that, so that at an appropriate time the leaders of the three respective parties can pick a time, some time next week, when we can make that official here in the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of some of the people of the Terra Nova District. I will read the prayer of the petition first.

The petition of the undersigned residents of the provincial District of Terra Nova and the federal District of Bonavista-Gander-Grand Falls-Windsor humbly shewth:

WHEREAS the name of the District of Terra Nova offers a reminder of our historic past and connection with Terra Nova National Park; and

WHEREAS the communities around the Terra Nova National Park share a common economy based in forestry, agriculture and tourism; and

WHEREAS the tourism industry offers special opportunities associated with Terra Nova National Park and other opportunities capitalizing on the Terra Nova identify; and

WHEREAS the current boundaries of Terra Nova National Park greatly affect the constituents of the Eastport Peninsula, Charlottetown and Glovertown; and

Not withstanding our recognition of the need for Terra Nova National Park to retain its integrity we now feel the need for winter access through the Terra Nova National Park from both the Eastport Peninsula and the Town of Charlottetown; and

WHEREFORE the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon you to consider the proposal being put forth for consideration and action.

And as duty bound petitions will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a couple of comments on this petition. There are just about 600 names on this petition. Basically, what has happened here is the residents of some communities, such as Charlottetown and the Eastport Peninsula, are not able to access the provincial trail system that we have.

As you know, the area of Terra Nova is certainly an area where tourism has certainly taken off and we certainly have, as a Province, really pushed and tried to maintain a good trail system. It has created a lot of dollars, a lot of economic growth for the area. But, the fact is, that these communities cannot access the trails. They are calling upon the federal government, really. This is a federal government matter and we realize that. These constituents have asked me to come forward with this petition, Mr. Speaker, just for a matter, I guess, to show our support in realizing that we really do need to have an access to the Park. It is certainly not appropriate that other areas in this Province can access these trails, and these other smaller communities cannot access it and certainly all of the Eastport Peninsula.

Today, we certainly call upon the federal government to step up to the plate, to give us the opportunity to be able to go out there and have a trail way through the Terra Nova National Park and actually continue to move and make tourism a great thing within the Terra Nova District and within these communities and areas.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

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

I guess, Mr. Speaker, second reading of a bill. It would be Order 6, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act. (Bill 42)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 42, Order 6, An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act." (Bill 42)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This particular bill here is to enable us to - a couple of particular things. One, what it does - like, the Commission now has no authority to borrow. Under this, what this will do, it will have the authority to borrow, given government approval. For example, the trailer park in Pippy Park is a very heavily utilized area. We want to expand the trailer park and do an expansion. By applying to ACOA we could get up to 50 per cent funding, interest free, to do expansions. That authority is not there now. If we want to enhance that park and utilize it and make improvements to it, to allow more people to enjoy it, we are handicapped now because of the current legislation. So, that is one thing that it does.

A second thing in the bill, because it allows - and it is in the explanatory notes there - us to appoint enforcement officers now. For instance, if somebody was up cutting trees in the park, we would not have the authority, particularly Park Commission, to do something about it. Or, if there was inappropriate camping up there. We need authority to be able to do something about that, to have a degree of enforcement over the park.

Overall, there are some efficiency changes just in the operational things in particular, that this would allow the government to do. So, it is to allow the park - Pippy Park, as you are aware, has been subsidized by government for many, many years. We have moved to try to reduce that. We have reduced the grant to Pippy Park in this year's budget. The intent is to eliminate the grant to Pippy Park, to make it more efficient in its operation in Pippy Park.

That is why this bill, I will tell the Member for Port de Grave, will allow an expansion of that area so we can - you can go out and borrow then, on authority from Cabinet, and you can get 50 per cent interest free, for example, from ACOA that we cannot do now. This allows to expand the camping area, to enhance it, to get extra revenues that will pay for the overall costs. That is one of the benefits in this particular bill. These are the generalities of it. Either at second reading or in Committee stage, I am certainly open to answer any particular questions.

With that, I will close my comments on second reading.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you for the opportunity to response to Bill 42. Pippy Park, as we all know it, has been one of our provincial treasures. Although there are two great facilities in Pippy Park, it has been operating for about fifteen years in a deficit and it has always relied on government support. By enacting this new piece of legislation today, the Commission now will be in a position where it can borrow on its own and, as the minister said, it can probably attract federal funding from ACOA, which would be a big plus in expanding the current facilities.

Of course, the object of this legislation is to reduce the reliance on government funding and grants. Of course, the Commission has always operated under the purview of government and they had a guaranteed funding of about $400,000 a year. Now, over the past year or so that has been reduced to $350,000. It is constantly under review, this particular park, but the idea of this piece of legislation, this bill will allow the golf course to operate for profit. So, in other words, they will have to show a profit and break even at the end of the year. Of course, by doing this, the current group that operates the golf course portion, which is named as the Thomas Group, they currently have a line of credit. I think it is somewhere in the area of about $150,000, the last time I looked at the Budget particulars last spring. If this piece of legislation gets passed, it will be necessary, of course, for government to absorb that line of credit in order for this transition to take place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There are a number of conversations occurring which is preventing the Speaker from hearing the presentation put forward by the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans. I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans continuing to debate this bill at second reading.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying before the interruption, this new group that will actually be formed to run the entire golf course will be taking over from the Thomas Group and will be under an obligation to balance their books at the end of the year.

There is a detail of course that has not been worked out entirely that is a bit of a concern. One part of the legislation makes an indication that government will appoint a new board of directors to manage the golf course, but details are scanty at this point. I know that will occur after the act is passed. We have not been given any side details as to the group, the numbers, and: Where will that group come from? Will it be a political patronage group, or will it be people who are skilled in the industry and who have knowledge of running a golf course?

When it comes to enforcement of regulations within the park: What kind of people are going to be hired to enforce those regulations? Will that be another avenue where this present government will show that they are going to use this to load it up with political patronage jobs? So, these are the kind of details that are not included in this legislation that is before us today, but the backbone of the legislation I do support.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further speakers to second reading?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just move second reading of Bill 42.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 42, An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission 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 Pippy Park Commission Act. (Bill 42)

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? Presently?

MR. E. BYRNE: Later today.

MR. SPEAKER: Later today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 42)

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

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

Order 9, second reading of a bill, An Act Respecting Protection Against Family Violence. (Bill 50)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 50, An Act Respecting Protection Against Family Violence, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Protection Against Family Violence." (Bill 50)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am pleased to rise today to address an issue that has been the source of growing community and government interest and concern. I am speaking of family violence.

The past two decades have seen legislative program and policy developments primarily in the area of criminal justice. Recently, we have seen a significant development in this Province with the expansion of Victim Services and the establishment of a child victim witness program.

Today, I wish to introduce the Family Violence Protection Act. This legislation is civil as opposed to criminal legislation, that will offer an immediate response for victims of family violence in emergency situations. This legislation will complement but not replace criminal justice interventions or decriminalize family violence. Civil family violence legislation fills a gap in the justice process for victims by providing a broader range of more immediate remedies than those that are currently available through the Criminal Code.

Currently, when the police respond to a family violence call, their ability and the grounds to remove the accused is limited. Often, it is the victim and the children who must leave the home in a police car to be transported to a safe shelter. Through emergency protection orders, that is set out in the legislation, the legislation would provide, amongst other things, for the victim - and the majority of victims in these situations are women - and their children to be able to remain in the family home where they can have uninterrupted access to school, to family, to employment and to community support.

Mr. Speaker, applications for emergency protection orders will be made on a ex parte basis twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Therefore, this legislation will go a long way to expanding access to justice for people who reside in areas where there is no court. A lawyer will not be required in order to make the application. The application would be made by a phone to a judge, and the judges will be available on call seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day.

I am extremely pleased to be able to tell you that this legislation has been the result of a very active community and government collaborative process. Last February, government established the Justice Minister's Committee on Violence Against Women. In addition to senior officials of the Department of Justice and the Women's Policy Office, we have strong community membership through representation from the provincial Transition House Association, the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the John Howard Society, and the Violence Prevention Initiatives Regional Committees in Eastern, Central and Western Newfoundland and Labrador.

At that time, government identified this legislation as a key priority. We asked the Committee to do the research, to explore best practices elsewhere in the country and in the world, and to conduct some consultations on the Island and in Labrador with key stakeholders and then come back to me, come back to the department, with a proposal for a model for this Province. We are very pleased with the results. The committee's work has been extremely valuable, and I would particularly like to thank Ms Kim Dreaddy of the Provincial Transition House Association for her hands-on dedication and commitment on this initiative. I want to thank all of the other members of both the sub-committee and the minister's committee for helping us bring this legislation forward.

The success of the legislation, Mr. Speaker, will rely heavily on thorough training, education and development of the appropriate policies and protocols within the Department of Justice and with other government departments and, as well, with relevant community partners. We are prepared to begin this work immediately upon the passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the government realizes that this legislation makes a strong statement about how seriously it takes the issue of family violence, and the devastation that family violence creates in the lives of adults and children alike. While this legislation will not ultimately solve all problems of family violence in our society, it is another measure, it is another tool, that we can offer victims to provide them with more options and more choice in the justice system, and easier access to the justice system.

Our efforts in this area, along with those of other departments in the Violence Prevention Initiative, under the leadership of the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, the Minister of Education and our community partners combined, will create substantial social change for a safer Newfoundland and Labrador.

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 response to this new act, the Family Violence Protection Act. I would like to commend government, in fact, for bringing forth this piece of legislation. The issues involving family violence - which quite often are the same; we have a lot of violence against women and against children - certainly need to be addressed. We were handicapped, and the system was handicapped in many cases, when it came to protecting people who needed this type of protection. The Criminal Code did not, does not, adequately deal with these situations and respond quickly enough, so it is good to see that we now will have another tool in the arsenal against violence that takes place in the family settings.

I am very pleased to see, as well, it is quite obvious that our Provincial Court Judges will have to buy into this new law, because someone has to be available on a twenty-four seven basis in order to address these concerns. It is one thing to pass the law, but it is going to take the co-operation of everyone in the system, particularly the judges as well, to make sure that this works, and it is only, I would think, over a period of time that we are going to work out some of the kinks. I do not think anyone should expect, simply because we passed the law, that we are going to have everything hunky-dory in terms of immediacy, proper training and so on. I think there has to be common sense applied to this, and it is going to take some time for everybody in the system to get involved, get training, so that we can make this piece of legislation work for what it is intended to do.

I am also aware there was no doubt a concern from a lot of the civil rights activists. For example, when you do things of this immediate emergency type nature, you quite often have concerns raised by people that you may infringe upon someone's civil rights. Someone makes an emergency application, a judge deals with it at 4:00 o'clock in the morning, and someone ends up being out of their home, someone ends up without being able to see their children, because an order was made. So, the question and concern often raised: Did that infringe upon somebody's rights.

Again, you have to look at the balance here, and I think it is very proper and we have made a good balance here because we have not gotten away from the procedural fairness piece. The respondents in those cases will still have an opportunity within this process to get due process, and if something has been done, they feel, improperly, they have lost their rights. We have done two things. We have preserved their rights for procedure fairness. They have a right to question again the authority upon which the judge made his decision at a later time; but, in the meantime, I believe the immediate and necessary problem has been dealt with, and that is, we have protected someone from violence, and I think that is a fair trade-off.

I am all in favour of civil rights, and I am certainly in favour of, you should never encroach upon anyone's civil rights, but I believe there has to be reasonable limitations from time to time, and in any circumstance where we deal with family violation, I believe it is always a reasonable limitation to act prudently in the first instance - for example, such as these emergency orders being made - and, if there were any violence happening, protect individuals from having to incur that type of activity.

Again, at this point, I think it is a great policy and it will fill a loophole. I commend the minister and the government for bringing forward this piece of legislation and I think it will go a long way to helping a very serious problem that we are facing today.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to speak on Bill 50, An Act Respecting Protection Against Family Violence, here at second reading in the House which is approval in principle. I am not going to comment on all the details of the legislation, because that is for Committee stage of the debate, but I do want to talk about the importance of this legislation and to say that we do support it.

We have seen, in our Province, far too often instances of family violence that cause women and children to fear for their safety. Women in particular who are victims of family violence often have no recourse but to leave the family home, and in many parts of this Province shelter is not available.

We have also seen - and this is the part that, I think, requires more than just legislation - instances where individuals have been subject to court processes, whether they be restraining orders, whether they be probation orders, whether they be conditions of release that have been granted by the courts when someone has been charged with an offense or taken up on what is commonly known as a peace bond and have been subject to more stringent rules in the courts. That itself has not served as sufficient to protect an individual - and here we are talking almost exclusively about women - from further actions of violence directed towards them. It is not enough to have a law, not enough to have a rule, not enough to have an order. There have to be resources available in the communities where people live to ensure that they are protected.

I suggest, as well, Mr. Speaker, to government officials, to the Department of Justice, to the police forces, to the judges of the courts who will be enforcing this order, that there be very careful consideration given in granting these orders. If orders are granted very easily or too easily, then the respect for the law, the deserved respect for the law on the orders and the rules, might not be as strong as it should be. If, when these orders are granted, they are not enforced because there is insufficient police protection available, then this law will be considered as ineffective as in some cases peace bonds have been.

I support the legislation. I support the approach. It is a novel approach. I do not know what other provinces have this. Maybe the Minister of Justice can tell us that when he closes debate. It is outside of the criminal law and provides additional strength to the kind of orders that could be made under the Family Law Act for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and provides an emergency procedure, but it is something that I think, from a civil liberties perspective, as the Opposition House Leader has said, ought to be used very carefully because just as we want to ensure that the victims of family violence are protected, we do not want this provision to be used somehow as a part of the arsenal of one party to a matrimonial dispute having to do with possession of matrimonial property. It is extremely important that women be protected, and women should not have to be the ones who leave because a violent situation exists.

The question does need to be asked, that after this has passed, will a woman in a remote community, who is a victim of family violence, be more secure because this legislation is passed or will she not? Because if the policing resources are not available, if the respect for the law in these communities which we are talking about is not strong, then we will have a situation where these kinds of orders will not be effective in providing safety and security for individuals.

I will refer to one section of the act, clause 5, which talks about the times during which a judge has the power to make such an emergency order - and this is being made without notice to the other person. So, I think you have to understand this is a significant intrusion, far above the normal powers that are given to provincial court judges or other judges. They are giving an order without notice, which has the effect of excluding an individual from his or her - because it could be an order against a woman - property. The judge has to determine, on the balance of probabilities first of all, that family violence has occurred. And, secondly, that by reason of seriousness or urgency the emergency protection order should be made without delay to ensure the immediate protection of the applicant who is at risk of harm or the property that is at risk of damage.

So, if somebody goes on a rampage on the family home, starting to destroy the home or threatening to destroy the home, or torch the home, or those kinds of things as part of a series of threats or actions, then these matters can be taken into consideration. The judge shall consider - and this is where part two of that clause says - the nature of the family violence. Obviously, the seriousness of it, the seriousness of a threat. Secondly, the history of family violence by the respondent toward the applicant and whether it is more likely than not that the respondent will continue the family violence. That is a judgement that the judge will be called upon to make, based on the history and based on threats and based on what has happened in the past. Thirdly, the existence of immediate danger to persons or property. Fourthly, the best interests of the applicant and an affected child.

In considering whether an order of this nature should be made, presumably also the availability of space in a shelter or availability of a shelter might be considered as a part of the considerations that a judge would have, whether or not the circumstances in the community where the individuals are residing, the availability of police protection - because, again, an order by itself is not going to be of much help if the RCMP only visit the community once a week or are stationed some many miles away. So, we have to put a lot of faith in the judges making proper decisions here, but from the point of view of the personal safety of women with families who are affected by these orders, we have to know that the police are available, that they have been trained to deal with these situations, that they know what to do, that the judges are sufficiently briefed on the resources that are available, because it is no good to give a judge a piece of legislation and ask them to make wise decisions based on the legislation that we have, this brand new legislation, without knowing what resources are available in a particular community or in the area in which they are being asked to make an order, whether or not those resources will be available to ensure that the emergency order provides the kind of protection that is intended here.

I am very supportive of taking strong measures to protect women from family violence of this nature, and, because of the history of family violence in this Province - and not just exclusive to this Province, obviously, all across this country - we have to know that people are being protected. We have had quite well-publicized circumstances of people, women, who were subject to or had the benefit of a peace bond being, in fact, murdered by their spouses, or attempted to go after them on other occasions, and this is not, obviously, something that we should spare legislative effort to try to stop and resolve; but, it is not merely going to be resolved by legislation but must also have the resources to go with it.

I want to say, in closing, that I support this legislation, that I hope that proper education and briefing is done to ensure that all those involved in implementing this legislation are fully aware of the implications and the provisions that are here, and that the resources will be made available on a specific basis to ensure that people who are beneficiaries of an order of this nature, an emergency order, do receive special notice and protection.

Peace bonds are a good example. This is similar to a peace bond in the sense that - although peace bonds under the Criminal Code can create specific criminal offences for doing things contrary to what is spelled out in the peace bond order; but, they haven't always proven effective in family violence situations. We need to be convinced, to some extent, that this will work better, and one of the ways that it will work better is if the police force in a particular area are certain to have notice of these emergency orders when they are made.

I have not seen all of the detail of this legislation, whether this is a legislated requirement that the local police force in the area in which an emergency protection order has been made shall be notified of the existence of this peace order. Because one of things that happens, of course, if there is a violation or attempted violation or a possible violation, of one of these emergency orders, is that the police have to know that the order is in place. That has been an issue with respect to peace bonds in the past, that if the police are not in possession of a peace bond it is very difficult for them to act on a peace bond in terms of following up and enforcing the peace bond. Perhaps the minister has a special plan to ensure that the police force are notified in the case of every emergency protection order that is made under this act, that this takes place.

The order is a direction to a police officer under section 15. It is a directive, and this is what it says here, "An emergency protection order made under this Act is a direction binding on a police officer to (a) give notice of the order to the respondent in accordance with this Act and the rules of court; and (b) take necessary steps, which may include the arrest of the respondent and the seizure of property, to enforce compliance with the emergency protection order."

Perhaps this is the notice that I was talking about. It goes further than filing a copy with the police officer, but it says it is binding on a police officer, so I guess it has to be provided to a police officer so that they would be involved from the very beginning. I suppose ipso facto, to use a phrase, by virtue of that, the local police authority would certainly have notice of that order, and they are also required to take necessary steps to enforce compliance.

I think that does go further than a peace bond, and provides the kind of direction to peace officers that may be necessary; but, as I indicated earlier, there is going to be a requirement of a fair degree of briefing and education on the part of all peace officers, that they are aware of what their obligations are with respect to this legislation, how they can function to carry it out, and how they can act on a timely basis to ensure that compliance with these emergency protection orders are, in fact, taking place.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I welcome other speakers on this issue. I understand the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women will speak on this as well, and I am interested in hearing other views on this legislation which I think is a very important step in making more secure the victims of family violence in our Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Further speakers at second reading.

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

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

I just want to say I appreciate the comments of the hon. Government House Leader and also the Leader of the New Democratic Party. I can appreciate some of the concerns they have raised, and I can assure you that the committee of experts, the Minister's advisory Committee on Violence Against Women, certainly have spent a lot of time analyzing some of the concerns that the hon. members have raised, and have certainly looked at the best practice models that have existed in other parts of the country.

I was in the Yukon recently for the federal, provincial and territorial meeting of Justice Ministers, and there I spoke to the Justice Minister from the Northwest Territories who is very pleased with the legislation. They had recently implemented similar legislation in that territory and he spoke very highly of it.

The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi spoke and raised concerns to make sure that resources were placed into this initiative. Of course, they do have to be, and I am pleased to tell the hon. member that the legislation will be incorporated within the existing system and structure, but there will be a dedicated co-ordinator in the department who will be developing training and education programs and will work with the Department of Justice and other departments and with appropriate community agencies on policy and protocol developments.

In terms of overall resources in the Justice system, this government has already begun implementing strategies to enhance police resources throughout the Province.

Hon. members also raised concerns with respect to the judge giving careful consideration in granting this emergency order. The application is ex parte which means that the applicant alone will be talking to the judge and when the order is granted it will have the respondent removed from the home by the police, as opposed to the current situation where the person who it a victim of domestic violence is required to leave the home and go to a shelter.

It is important to point out that if the order is granted by the judge, the order will last a maximum of ninety days, the order cannot be renewed, and the respondent, within ten days, can apply to a judge to have the order set aside or to have the order varied or terminated. So there is due process. The applicant will have a chance. When that happens, it is a new hearing and the evidence that was brought up, was brought before the judge at the time of the original application, and any new evidence will be heard.

The last thing I just want to say, is that in terms of communities where there are no police officers, there is provision in the legislation where the application can be brought by, of course, the victim. It can also be brought by someone who lives with the victim, or a parent of the victim. A police officer can bring the application. I would imagine in most cases it will be a police officer that would initiate the application or the phone call to the judge, but also the Minister of Justice in the act, is allowed to delegate, pursuant to the regulations, people in the community who could be of assistance to victims. This could be very helpful, especially in those communities where there is not a police officer or there may be some time before a police officer can respond to the call.

I want to thank the hon. members for their support. This is a very important piece of legislation. It is progressive legislation. It will not solve all of the problems but it will give those who suffer from domestic violence, another tool, another step, another initiative, in helping to try to prevent family violence in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 50, An Act Respecting Protection Against Family Violence, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Protection Against Family Violence. (Bill 50)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 50, An Act Respecting Protection Against Family Violence 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 Respecting Protection Against Family Violence," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 50)

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

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

Order 10, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill 44)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 44, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991, be now read a second time.

On motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991." (Bill 44)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am pleased to rise again to speak on another important topic in this Province and to speak to Bill 44, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act.

This act, Mr. Speaker, requires the appointment of a standing three-member tribunal to make recommendations to the Minister of Justice on the salaries and benefits of provincial court judges every four years. The process is designed to ensure the independence of judges and the judicial system.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, anyone charged with a crime is entitled to a hearing before an impartial and an independent tribunal. So we have to make sure that our judges who hear these cases are truly independent, and we do this in a number of ways. We give judges security of tenure, that they cannot be fired without the influence of either the House of Assembly or other provincial judicial council. They cannot be transferred without their consent. We also have to ensure that they have some financial security, because obviously, we cannot have a situation where a judge is deciding cases where the provincial government itself is a litigant in many of these cases. We cannot have a situation where if the provincial government does not like the decision that the provincial court judge has made, that it would somehow take away certain benefits or reduce the judges salary.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ordered that the process of determining judges' salaries and judges' benefits be de-politicalized. Basically, that means that there has to be a buffer. There has to be some buffer between the government and the judges to determine their salary and their benefits. What we have done in this Province in the past, is set up what is known as a salary and benefits tribunal.

The last tribunal reported to the former Minister of Justice in September, 2001. Its report was considered by this House and was implemented as directed by the House on April 1, 2002. The new tribunal was appointed last month on October 17, 2005. The Chair of the tribunal is retired Supreme Court Judge Geoffrey Steele. The judges' representative on the tribunal is Mr. David Day, Q.C., and the government's representative on the tribunal is Mr. David Norris, MBA, the former Deputy Minister of Finance in the Newfoundland and Labrador Government. I have asked this tribunal to report to me by April 1, 2006. The report period to be addressed is four years from 2004-2005 to 2007-2008

This amendment is of a housekeeping nature only. Section 28.2 of the act requires the tribunal to report to the Minister of Justice within four years from the date of the last report. The purpose of this amendment is to defer the statutory report to April 1, 2004 from September 14, 2005; to confirm the process now underway, with the co-operation and participation of the judges. The new date of April 1, 2006 will provide sufficient time for the tribunal to consider all issues before it and also permits tabling of the report in consideration by this House during the spring session of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my hon. colleagues to support this amendment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We certainly will be supportive of this amendment. It is more of a housecleaning thing. I guess they need more time to get it done and get it done right, and anything that permits of doing it proper and with proper consideration, we certainly would not be having any objection to.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further speakers at second reading?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly have no difficulties with the legislation here. This committee has important work to do and it is necessary to have the reports before the House of Assembly in a timely fashion. The minister's explanation makes sense to me, so we support this legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Any further speakers at second reading?

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

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleagues for the swift passage of this legislation, which will allow this very important tribunal to carry on its work.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 44, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill 44)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 44, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991, has been now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House? Now? Tomorrow? Presently?

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 44)

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

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

Order 4, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act. (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Forestry Act." (Bill 32)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill 32, An Act to Amend The Forestry Act, has been in the works, I suppose, for about two-and-a-half to three years; maybe a little longer, but not much. It is a result really that emanates from an outstanding court decision, or came about as a decision of a court, and a court action that was taken against the Crown sometime ago. I say that just by way of background, so we understand the impetus for what we are about to discuss from debate. But, out of that process has come, I believe, I can say to my colleague, the Minister of Conservation and Environment, what we believe to be a pretty progressive and forward looking piece of legislation. I do want to acknowledge upfront as well, that much of the work, or at least half of the work associated with this piece of legislation, was conducted by the previous Administration as well, who are more than well aware of the impacts and the positive outcomes associated with this act.

Essentially, what this act will do, and ultimately provide for, is - I do not know if the word streamlining would be the most appropriate word but I will use it in any event - streamlining the environmental assessment process and the forestry planning process within each district to allow for a shorter time frame and allow for the ability for the management of the forest system to be conducted in a different and, in my view, more accountable up-front way.

Some features of the act, for example, provide for the concurrence of, I just said, the forestry planning environmental assessment process to go forward, the duty to consult, the ability to modify but not change the five-year forestry plans within available districts, but the ability to modify and adapt to changes within that period of time without adding to the Annual Allowable Cut that has been established. A very important feature, as we have come to see through the experiences that we have had.

Mr. Speaker, I offered a briefing to any and all members, certainly, related to any piece of legislation. I mean, that is a standing offer that any member of this House or any caucus who wish to have, what we refer to as a technical briefing with respect to any piece of legislation. We would endeavour and do our best to ensure that whatever information that we have within my own department, or any other department, certainly is made available to the extent that we can, which explains legislation and trying to provide members with as much information as possible with respect to any piece of legislation.

To that end, I know that the Official Opposition had a briefing on this yesterday. The Chief Executive Officer of the Newfoundland and Labrador Forestry Service was in with another member of my staff, the Director of Communications for Natural Resources, and presented a briefing to the Opposition. I think, at the time, answered any questions to the best of their ability, any queries to the best of their ability.

Second reading, Mr. Speaker, is about outlining, obviously, the general thrusts and throes of what the piece of legislation is about and why we are doing it and why we are moving forward. So, with that opening commentary, I will take my seat and look forward to any other commentary or discussion that members may have. In particular, if we want to get into a detailed discussion on a clause-by-clause basis, I am certainly prepared, obviously, to do that at the Committee stage.

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 on the amendments to the Forestry Act. People sometimes wonder, I guess, what we do spending a lot of time here talking about some things that sometimes many of us know very little about; for example, forestry. Coming from a place like Port aux Basques, of course, we do not have to deal too much with forests in my neck of the woods where the woodpecker brings a lunch. In any case, it is great that we review here, as an institution, the laws that we are all governed by. Sometimes we do not pick it up ourselves, that we did something wrong or we did not do it right in the first place. Sometimes we are smart enough, through experience, to note that we did not get it right and therefore we have to come back to the House. That is why what we consider to be the laws of the land, from time to time, need to be overhauled, like anything else, updated and made to fit the current day circumstances.

That is what we had here, basically. We had a court decision, commonly referred to as the Barry decision, back in 2001, when they said there are some things amiss here. For example, you have two departments of government who are involved in the administration of our forestry in a lot of respects - for example, you had the Department of Natural Resources and you had the Department of Environment, and sometimes we want to make sure that one hand knows what the other hand is doing. That, of course, was not the case pre-Barry decision. What the government of the day, in trying to follow through on what the judge recommended, was to say: Let's get it right this time.

So they went back, there was an extensive overhaul, and what we see here today is the culmination of that process to hopefully give that flexibility that we need in government in managing the resources, but at the same time making sure now that the one hand - for example, the Department of Environment and Conservation - knows what is going on vis-B-vis the Department of Natural Resources. That is what a lot of these amendments here are geared to, so it is nice to see that.

We had cases, for example, where companies were submitting their operational plans. The Department of Natural Resources might be making decisions about those operational plans without necessarily the Department of Environment having any oversight and to see if things were being done right from an environmental review, or vice versa. You could have had the Department of Environment making decisions that could impact upon the companies and no feedback between them. So, that is a matter - it goes beyond housecleaning. This is a matter of proper protocol, proper communication now being directed between the two departments to make sure that this type of unnecessary, shall we say, miscommunication does not happen in the future.

I do appreciate the minister - he offered a briefing here, a technical briefing, which we took advantage of yesterday with his staff. I find that very helpful. We all do not know everything about everything, and it is very helpful, rather than come here into the House and try to decide on your feet, or just before you get on your feet, what a piece of legislation does or does not say. It is very helpful to members of this House when you take advantage of these briefings, because quite often - and, no offence to the ministers, I am sure most of them are well briefed - quite often there are technical details within the legislation that even the minister does not have a good understanding of, or background about, giving you the background as to why we are now here dealing with that. When you get talking to the people who have lived this for years, and the experts and the professionals and the bureaucrats in the field, they give you a much more field-life situation as to why we are here. So, instead of just dealing with paper and words, and wondering what it is all about, you get a good background appreciation of what this is all about, and put some real-life emphasis to what we are here trying to do.

I say to the minister, I thank you very much for the briefing that we had, and I will certainly take advantage of every opportunity that I can get, any time a piece of legislation concerns my area of criticism and critique, to make sure that I am informed so any questions I do have will be of a constructive nature.

In summary, I will simply say that I agree with what I have read here. I think it is a good process to move it forward. Don't mistake it; we will be back here again. I am sure everything is still not right, and I am sure, with the turn of time and experience again, that in the future some judge is going to tell us that you still haven't got it right and we have to come back again. That does not mean anybody failed. That does not mean anybody did anything improper. That just means that you did not think about every particular circumstance at the time, and that is what life is all about.

There is a difference between doing something deliberately or even mistakenly wrong or without having given proper thought to it. It is something else that you just could not have reasonably been expected to think of every single circumstance. That is why everybody working together, the judiciary and the Legislature and the people in the field, through experience, coming back and saying: Let's make the changes when and if they are required.

Nobody, I believe, would be objecting to anything that makes common sense and is going to make our world work better.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further speakers at second reading?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to speak briefly on the issue of Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act.

I have to say that the forestry legislation in this Province, and the operations of forestry in the Province, is probably one of the most complex regimes that is managed by the government. Many times, Mr. Speaker, most people in the Province have no idea what the management principles are, in effect, and how decisions are made, why they are made, and how the use of our forests is shared within the Province, and the various uses that are undertaken by both the paper companies, who have specific rights over certain parcels of land that they have in fee simple grants going back as early as 1905 and 1898, and some timber leases going back before that. We have licences being granted by the Crown. We have certain rights being sold and bought several times over the last hundred years that give, without government's authority, certain rights over parcels of land, and the management of the forestry is an extremely complex matter.

One example, I guess, of how these matters become issues is only in a time of crisis. When a paper mill is threatening to change its regime, or close down, or making demands upon government, we hear all about the regimes, how they work, and what rights companies have over certain parcels of land. We have crises when it comes to questions of environmental protection, use of the forest. Cutting, for example, up in the area of the main river was a major point of controversy several years ago, and whether or not environmental protections had been undertaken. There have been matters subject to court cases in the federal court and in our provincial courts in terms of the access roads. There is an enormous amount of legislative consequence to forest activities. I do not know if any one person has a handle on them all. I certainly do not claim to, Mr. Speaker.

We had a situation a couple of years ago - Bill 27 has been talked about an awful lot in the last number of days. Bill 27, effectively, has the effect of changing timber leases to Abitibi Consolidated, some of which were ninety-nine year leases that expired, or would have already expired, some of which are expiring, or were due to expire, over the next number of years. Bill 27 puts them all together and says they will all expire on the same date in 2010, I believe it is.

One other interesting aspect of Bill 27 is that there is a requirement that there be a public consultation process to take place prior to, in the twelve months prior to any renewal of these leases, to consider, by communities and stakeholders -

MR. E. BYRNE: This is Bill 32.

MR. HARRIS: This is Bill 32; the hon. member has it right. The Government House Leader says, yes, this is Bill 32.

He is the one who has been on the radio and on TV almost every day talking about Bill 27. If he can talk about it on the radio and on TV all the time, I am certainly going to talk about it in the House of Assembly, because it is an important matter, at second reading on this bill, that we have some general understanding of how our forestry system works in this Province, because we have a whole series of particular changes here, bits and pieces, changes, nineteen separate changes to the Forestry Act that affect the environment, that affect the usage of our timber, that affect whether clear-cutting will or will not take place in certain areas, it has affects on the minister's power to approve exchange of timber rights, and all sorts of things that are spelled out here. I didn't have this technical briefing, Mr. Speaker, wasn't even aware of it, so I don't know the detail that was made available to the previous speaker as to what each and every section of this bill means. So, I want to talk about it in a general way, and I am talking about it at second reading, which is whether or not this House should approve, in principle, these amendments to the Forestry Act.

As I say, the public is hardly ever involved in issues related to this, except in a time of crisis, if someone is complaining about a particular environmental consequence of forestry activity, if a community is complaining that they don't have access to timber for firewood, if a sawmill operator is complaining that they don't have access to saw logs, if a sawmill is complaining about the price that they are getting for pulp logs under contracts with the big paper companies. These are the times when the public hears about the rules and regulations and how they affect the forestry. The minister is charged with a big responsibility in getting it right in terms of the Forestry Act and the legislation that allows -

MR. E. BYRNE: He has no idea (inaudible).

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

MR. HARRIS: While I am trying to speak here, Mr. Speaker, I understand the Government House Leader is suggesting to members opposite that I have no idea of the forest management process in the Province, that I don't know anything about what I am talking about, and that I have no knowledge whatsoever about the forestry in the Province. Well, I will tell the minister, Mr. Speaker, I have a very deep knowledge - I don't have the extensive knowledge of the act that this minister is supposed to have, and I didn't attend the technical briefing that my friends on this side were offered yesterday. I will say that I do know we have significant problems in our forestry and it has to do with the way the forests have been managed by - and I am not putting the blame on this minister - but by governments of this Province over the years. We have a crisis in the amount of fiber, the paper companies call it, available to carry out the paper industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have had significant issues related to environmental issues in terms of clear-cutting and the consequences for our rivers. We had a situation, Mr. Speaker, where forestry management plans were not even subject to the Environment Protection Act up until recently. So, we do have significant public policy issues that the public are entitled to have a say in, and if the only people who are allowed to talk about it are the people who have the intimate and intricate knowledge about it, well, there will not be very many people talking about forestry in this Province because, as I said in the beginning, it is an extremely complicated area; complicated enough that, as the minister himself said, and the previous speaker, the courts have told the government that the legislation they have does not allow them to do the things they are purporting to do.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this act and the amendments that are being brought forward do bring about the changes that are necessary to allow the flexibility to manage the forest properly, that the government feels it needs. I hope that they are here.

We do have a significant problem across this country, Mr. Speaker, in terms of ensuring that we do have maximum value from our forests, that in this Province, in particular, communities can have access to sawlogs, for example, access to firewood, access to Crown land where necessary, to ensure that their community's needs are met, and this is a very significant piece of work.

Mr. Speaker, we do need to have a stable and sustainable forestry policy. We have seen in the past, through the five-year management plans that have been published by this government, that the prospects for the future mean that there are going to have to be considerable changes made if we are going to have the amount of fiber that we need, the amount of forest regeneration that we need, in order to maintain a viable forestry industry in the Province.

I hope the minister has gotten it right. I do know that significant problems exist in our industry today, as has been evidenced by decisions made by Abitibi Consolidated, and ones that they want to make; but I, too, want to say that we, in this party, strongly supported Bill 27 when it came before the House. We believe the forestry companies have a strong obligation to the people of this Province, having been here, in one case - Abitibi Consolidated and its predecessors - for 100 years, and made very substantial profits for its shareholders, and continue to do so into the future from the concessions that were granted to them by governments of the past, and current governments, to ensure that we have viable industry.

I hope that these changes give the minister the flexibility that is needed to ensure that - we do not want to put extra burdens on forestry operators, that are unnecessary. We do want to see some flexibility, but we also have to ensure that the rights of people who have access to the forest are recognized and supported, and not taken away by arbitrary acts of government that can happen from time to time.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, at second reading, in principle, I support changes to the Forestry Act that will give increased flexibility to the minister in ensuring, first of all, that forest management plans are prepared that are appropriate to the timber-cutting regimes that are available, and that you can combine areas from one forest management plant before another to establish Annual Allowable Cuts, and not have the kind of rigidity that we have had in the past.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to speak to Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important, when we are developing any type of resources in this Province, that we do so, so that it is streamlined through government departments. I think this bill today is certainly going to enable government to be able to do that, both through the Department of Environment, through the Department of Forestry, and whatever other government departments may be affected.

I know that in Labrador right now we have a tremendous forest resource, and a tremendous opportunity when it comes to developing that particular resource. I think after this year we will have something like 280,000 cubic metres of wood that will be available for economic development purposes, either through the Aboriginal groups -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Yes, in Labrador, through co-operation with our Aboriginal groups, both the Innu, the Metis and the Inuit, and also in conjunction with the economic development boards and the investors in the forest industry in that particular region.

I think it is important, when you are looking at developments of that magnitude with our resource sector, that you actually have the consistency within government departments, so that when you are moving forward with proposals like this, that they are being done so that all arms of government are aware of it, so that when it is given the green light to go you do not end up with a court challenge on environmental legislation or environmental policy. We certainly would not want to see that happen.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, the 280,000 cubic metres of wood in Labrador that is available and will be available in the coming months for development is certainly going to provide good opportunity to the people of Labrador.

I just got back from Happy Valley-Goose Bay myself, Mr. Speaker, where the federal government has just invested today well over $300 million into the Labrador region. I think it is probably the single largest investment of capital expenditure that we have seen in the area for quite a long time.

Mr. Speaker, it was a very exciting time for the people of Labrador. There are many components to that. It was not only just shoring up the longevity and the long-term security for the base at Goose Bay, and the fact that there is going to a tremendous amount of investment in that entity, but also, Mr. Speaker, to know that the Labrador region will now become one of the major players in the Coast Guard industry, and to know that over $100 million will be spent there to base marine Coast Guard and air surveillance services for Labrador. I think that is a very significant contribution on behalf of the federal government.

I know the other day, the Member for Lake Melville was standing in his place and criticizing the MP there for not doing justice to that file, and not delivering on it, but it was certainly obvious today that he delivered, Mr. Speaker, and delivered in a tremendous way.

Also, one of the components - this brings me to the forestry piece - is that there was an announcement for $20 million of an economic development fund for the region. That money will be invested to develop the economic opportunities of the area; and, of course, forestry is one of those tremendous economic opportunities that we have.

I think that the announcements today give Labrador the opportunity to move forward in many ways, not just from securing its base operations and not just from its marine sector operations, but also on a whole number of other facets; forestry certainly being one of those facets in which we will be able to use some of that economic development money to bring about some real productive jobs in Labrador, from a Labrador resource, for the people who are there.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the amendments in this bill are quite appropriate at the time. I think it is important to streamline the legislation on all of this. I wanted to speak today, to make those few comments, and in particular to acknowledge the tremendous contribution that was made to Labrador today by the federal member and by the Government of Canada.

I can tell you, it was a pleasure to stand in that room in Happy Valley-Goose Bay today and see that. I think that, with some new legislation, with lots of government investment from the feds, we could see some real progress in forestry over the next few years in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

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

I appreciate the involvement of my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, and critic in terms of the process in dealing with this piece of legislation, but I do want to take the time to correct some of the, I guess, misunderstandings that may have been left or impressions that may have been left by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

First of all, Bill 32 is about providing the opportunity for the Crown, through its agencies, to manage the forestry industry and all of the value sets that exist on forestry land, whether that be through environmental assessment process, whether that be on developments along tourism developments, agriculture, the forestry operating plans, et cetera. Now, here are some of the things that the member said: that the only time the public was hardly ever involved in the management of the forest industry unless there is a crisis. Now, that statement cannot be left unchecked or not put in perspective. There is not a division in the provincial government that goes through the public consultation process as a matter of its system, its systemic process as does the people and individuals and professionals involved in the forestry division. There is not another division or department in all of government that has so engaged the public as a matter of course through its regular forest management process in each district in Newfoundland and Labrador, twenty-four of them, as the forestry division and the employees there who protect the forest industry, who engage the public, stakeholders, municipal leaders. Anybody who wants to be part of a forestry management plan in the district in which they live have the opportunity to do so, over a significant period of time.

I will say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi: Does he know how long the process is, for example, on developing a forestry management plan? On average, it takes about eighteen to twenty-four months. That is eighteen to twenty-four months of sometimes nightly meetings, staff engaging stakeholders, trying to balance all of the value sets, whether it be the access to timber that Abitibi or Corner Brook Pulp and Paper have on Crown limits to the integrated sawmill industry, trying to ensure that people who want to have access to fibre for sawlogs. So, all of those issues, all of those competing interests in the forestry industry, all are fed into a management process in each district, twenty-four different districts.

Then there are those individuals who believe that we should not be cutting anywhere at all anyway. They are part of that process. Then there are those who believe that we should not even spend $15 or $20 out of our pocket to buy a permit, that we have an inherent right to cut whatever logs we want. Those who may be in that group are involved in that process. But, do you know who manages all of those competing interests? It is the people within the division of the Department of Forestry. The most publicly regulated, publicly advanced in terms of consultation based upon science, and they need to be commended and applauded for it. But, for the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi to say that the only time people are involved in the development of the industry is when there is a crisis, demonstrates his absolute, absolute misunderstanding of how this industry is managed, how well it is managed and how well it is managed for the future of the people of the Province.

Here is another statement he said: We are in a crisis in the Newfoundland forest industry because we do not have enough fibre to continue what we are up to. Absolute falsehood! It is an absolute falsehood to even make the statement. That may be an antidotal sort of perception that exists amongst the general population but it has no basis in fact and has no basis in science.

Lately, for example, when you talk about the forestry industry, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi referenced about Abitibi and Bill 27 and most people in Newfoundland and Labrador think that the pulp and paper industry - that is what the forestry industry is in Newfoundland and Labrador. No doubt it is important. No doubt those companies make significant economic contributions in terms of direct employment but the integrated sawmill industry employs more people, or just as many. People like Kevin Sexton in Bloomfield, who operates one of the most technologically advanced mills, not only in Newfoundland and Labrador but in the country. I have been in many of these mills personally myself - or Fred Osmond in Hampton, or Bob Dingwall for that matter, down in Jamestown, and many others; A. L. Stuckless. We can name them all over the Province; in Labrador et cetera. That is where the real rural impacts of the forest industry are being felt and managed, and they are important. These are individuals who are employing significant numbers of people in some of the most rural parts of our Province; out of sight from the camera. Out of sight, generally speaking, from the provincial media but equally and just as important the contribution that they make to this industry as Abitibi makes or as Corner Pulp and Paper make in terms of employment, in terms of economic benefits. They are an integral part of the forestry management process and I believe that they would disagree with some of the statements made here this afternoon, but I know that they would not disagree with Bill 32. I also know that their association, the Newfoundland and Labrador Lumber Producers Association, who I meet with every two to three months to discuss issues of importance in the industry, I know that they would not disagree with Bill 32 either because this is a progressive move forward, as my colleague, the Opposition House Leader said.

Now, technical briefings from the department, I say to each and every member in this House, are available. Any legislation that comes before this House, as long as people want to have a briefing on it from officials, they certainly will be provided, as long as it is in the spirit that we will get it done as soon as we can and it is not used as an opportunity to hold up government agenda, but briefings, as a matter of course, will be made available to members. Do you know why? It is for a couple of reasons. Each of us are entitled to the same level of information when it comes to debating legislation in this House. Secondly, it actually provides for a more informed debate about a particular piece of legislation. It actually provides for more insight, more intelligent debate, a broader base of understanding. If there are issues as a result of those types of briefings that we have philosophical or ideological differences about, then it helps narrow and focuses in on those to see if there is anyway that we can find a resolution to the fundamental, or potential fundamental differences that we have. So, my view, and this government's view, is the more that we can have in members' hands with respect to legislation and briefings, the better off the process is, the better off we are, and one would hope - that being the case - the better off the public would be.

I appreciate very much the commentary made by my colleague from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair: a significant amount of fibre becoming available in Labrador. No question about it. How we best utilize that resource primarily for the benefit of people in Labrador is where we need to turn our attention. It is one of the reasons why, in the last Budget for example, that we - I know we allocated $350,000 for a value-added study for Labrador woods products. Now, that study is just about to be completed and when it is, I will share it with members equally and freely, but the purpose and intent of allocating that sum of money was - how do we move the resource in Labrador up the value chain? How do we move it up so that we can see in Labrador better utilization and further utilization of Labrador woods products maybe to more secondary processing?

There are a number of proposals that are on the table right now. So, we are looking forward, we are looking very forward to what that study will demonstrate to us and where the opportunities lie. I want to thank the individuals within my own department who have been leading that study for the work that they have done and the work that they continue to do, to try to seek out any and all opportunities of taking a raw resource in a particular region of the Province, looking and analyzing ways with the particular realities that exist in every region. How do we overcome those challenges and, at the same time, grow an industry for the benefit of the people who reside next to them? So, I am looking forward to some of that information becoming available sooner rather than later.

Let me say this in summation, that this piece of legislation is a good piece of legislation. It allows us to manage the industry, not just from a strict forestry point of view in terms of access to fibre and access roads to get that fibre, but it allows for the divisions and departments of government to come together, particularly with environment, to manage the system in a more efficient, a more timely way, a more accountable way to the end users, and, ultimately, Mr. Speaker, a more accountable way to the public of the Province. With that, I will close second reading.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act. (Bill 32)

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 Forestry Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 32)

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

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

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider matters related to Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act; Bill 42, An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act, and Order 10, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, Bill 44.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I am going to call, first of all, debate on An Act To Revise The Law About Pensions For Members Of The House Of Assembly, Bill 24.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Bill 24, An Act To Revise The Law About Pensions For Members Of The House Of Assembly.

A bill, "An Act To Revise The Law About Pension For Members Of The House Of Assembly." (Bill 24)

CLERK (Noel): Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1. Shall Clause 1 carry?

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There are some amendments. I have asked that a copy from the Table here be provided to both the NDP and the Official Opposition, which I received a copy from them and passed to them. I have also had an opportunity to discuss that with them pertaining to these amendments. There are several there, I will move the one at the appropriate time on each clause.

The first amendment is to Clause 1. It says, "(1) Subclause (2)(1) of Bill 24 is amended by adding immediately after paragraph (k) the following: (k.1), "month" meaning a calendar month and for the purpose of the application of this Act to a member elected for the first time after the 45th General Assembly includes a portion of a month."

"(2) Subclause (2)(1) of the bill is amended by adding immediately after paragraph (u) the following: (v) "year" means a calendar year but, for the purpose of the application of this Act to a member elected for the first time after the 45th General Assembly, "year" means a period of 12 consecutive months."

Those are the amendments at Clause 1, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board indicates that it is an amendment to clause 1. I think, if the member will check, he will find that it is an amendment to clause 2 and not clause 1.

Clause 1, I say to the hon. minister is just a short title.

MR. SULLIVAN: Sorry, it is. I was looking at definitions in the bill. Definitions are in clause 2. That is correct.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

MR. SULLIVAN: Also, Mr. Chair, in clause 2 of the bill -

CHAIR: Order, please!

We are passing and we are dealing with clause 1, and I ask the member if he would be kind enough to rise when the clause that he is making amendments to is called.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is clause 2 of the bill.

CHAIR: We are dealing with clause 1, I say to the minister.

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: Clause 2. Shall clause 2 carry?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chair, with reference to Clause 2 of the Bill, it is amended by adding immediately after subclause (2) the following: (3) For the purpose of the application of this Act to a member elected for the first time after the 45th General Assembly, paragraphs (1)(a), (b) and (c) shall be read as if the word "calendar year" and "calendar years" were "year" and "years" respectively.

CHAIR: Order, please!

It is moved by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board that clause 2 be amended. It is the Chair's understanding that this amendment is in order and has been vetted through the Table.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendments to clause 2?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt clause 2 as amended?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 2 is carried as amended.

On motion, clause 2 as amended, carried.

CLERK: Clause 3.

CHAIR: Clause 3. Shall clause 3 carry?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Clause 3 of the Bill is amended by adding immediately after subclause (2) the following: (3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a member elected for the first time after the 45th General Assembly and in the application of subsection (2) to such a member the words "calendar years" shall be read as "years".

CHAIR: Order, please!

It is moved by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board that clause 3 be amended.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment to Clause 3?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt clause 3 as amended?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 3 is carried as amended.

On motion, clause 3 as amended, carried..

CLERK: Clauses 4 to 10.

CHAIR: Clauses 4 to 10. Shall clauses 4 to 10 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 4 through 10 carried.

CLERK: Clause 11.

CHAIR: Clause 11. Shall clause 11 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman, an amendment. Clause 11 of the Bill is amended by immediately adding after subclause (1) the following: (1.1) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(c), for the purpose of calculating the amount of the registered allowance paid to a member elected for the first time after the 45th General Assembly, his or her base minister's salary shall not be included.

CHAIR: Order, please!

It is moved by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board that clause 11 be amended.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment to clause 11?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt clause 11 as amended?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 11 is carried as amended.

On motion, clause 11 as amended, carried.

CLERK: Clauses 12 to 18.

CHAIR: Clauses 12 to 18. Shall clauses 12 to 18 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 12 through 18 carried.

CLERK: Clause 19.

CHAIR: Clause 19. Shall clause 19 carry?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman, clause 19 of the Bill is amended by adding immediately after the subclause (1) the following: (1.1) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a vested member elected for the first time after the 45th General Assembly who is no longer an MHA or a minister may, on application, receive a supplementary allowance if (a) the member has paid the contributions for service required under this Act; and (b) the member's (i) MHA service added to his or her age equals or exceeds 60, or (ii) MHA service added to his or her age equals 55 where the member has served as Premier.

CHAIR: It is moved by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board that clause 19 be amended.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment to clause 19?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt clause 19 as amended?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 19 is carried as amended.

On motion, clause 19 as amended, carried.

CLERK: Clause 20.

CHAIR: Clause 20. Shall clause 20 carry?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

One final amendment, that clause 20 is amended by adding immediately after subsection 2, the following:

(2.1) Notwithstanding paragraph (2)(e), for the purpose of calculating the amount of the supplementary allowance paid to a member elected for the first time after the 45th General Assembly, his or her base minister's salary shall not be included.

CHAIR: It is moved by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board that clause 20 be amended. Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment to clause 20?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt clause 20 as amended.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 20 is carried as amended.

On motion, clause 20 as amended, carried.

CLERK: Clause 21 to and including clause 38.

CHAIR: Clauses 21 to and including clause 38. Shall those clauses carry inclusively?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 21 to and including clause 38 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, the enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Revise The Law Respecting About Pensions For Members Of The Assembly.

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 24, An Act To Revise The Law About Pensions for Members Of The House Of Assembly, carried as amended?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 24 is carried as amended.

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. Speaker.

We begin debate in Committee on An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill 44)

CHAIR: Order, please!

Bill 44, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991." (Bill 44)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1. Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Provincial Court 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 44, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Bill 44 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.

Committee stage debate on An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act. (Bill 42)

CHAIR: Order, please!

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act." (Bill 42)

CLERK: Clauses 1 through 40.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 through 40 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know we are talking about a lot of sections all at once here, but I will refer to some request which was made to me as to whether or not - what kind of powers an enforcement officer is being given under the act.

The new section 66.1 of the act, under clause 36 of this bill, provides that, "An enforcement officer appointed under subsection 66(2) has the powers of a peace officer to enforce this Act and the regulations and when performing his or her duties is entitled to the protection to which a peace officer is entitled under the Criminal Code."

What I see here, too, is that a person who contravenes the act and regulations "... may be expelled from public land by the commission, by an enforcement officer appointed under subsection 66(2) or by a member of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary."

I just wonder, this seems to be fairly broad powers being given to someone. Pippy Park, of course, is a very large area of the City of St. John's. It seems that there are powers being given for people to kick people out of Pippy Park, or any public area or trail, by an enforcement officer or by the commission. A person may be expelled by the commission.

What does that mean, Mr. Chairman? Does that mean that the commission is going to be given the power to suggest that somebody cannot walk their dog at Three Pond Barrens because they did not abide by the regulations that were made by the park as to how you should look after the dog, or whether you should have them on a lease or whether you should not? Is the commission being given the power to deem that somebody is going to be expelled from the park? People live in that park. There are a lot of houses there.

This seems to be extraordinary power, and I wonder why, Mr. Chairman, there is a necessity of giving those powers to the commission or to enforcement officers to actually expel someone from what is, in fact, public land, and what issues have arisen in the past that give rise to the commission or somebody deciding that these powers are necessary.

It just seems to me to be very strong powers being given to a park commission to operate what is normally not really a park. I mean, within the park there is a golf course, there are residential structures, there are barbeque areas, there is a fluvarium. There are all sorts of things within the Pippy Park area - including, in fact, the House of Assembly. The Confederation Building is within Pippy Park. Can this be used to prohibit people on strike from exercising their rights? If they are causing a disturbances, can they be removed by the Pippy Park Commission from all of Pippy Park, or expelled from the park? I think that is the word - expelled from public land by the commission.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, to be very extraordinary powers and I wonder, can the minister who is responsible for this legislation, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, explain why it is these powers are required, and whether consideration has been given to the civil liberties aspects of this by giving the commission the power to expel individuals from the act because they contravene the act or a regulation made under the act.

I do not know in detail the regulations made under the act, but I imagine there are some general provisions regarding conducting a nuisance, or carrying out a nuisance, or doing certain things that might be well within the bounds of what we expect in a lawful strike, for example, or public demonstration that might be contrary to the regulations made under the act in which this House of Assembly, the Confederation Building, I think parts of Memorial University, are a part of that.

What are the public areas of the park? Are the grounds of Memorial University public areas of the park or are they private areas of the park? Are the grounds of the Confederation Building public areas of Pippy Park that people can be expelled from by the commission? Can the minister explain in some detail what it is that is being aimed at here, and why these powers which I consider to be somewhat extraordinary are being granted to the commission?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There is certain enforcement now that is carried out at Memorial University, on their property around the building here, by government. It is not the intent to interfere with that process at all. Right now there is no enforcement authority in the act, in the park. You can go and cut a

tree in that park, and the park commission cannot do anything about it. You can go and do camping up there without any regulations for inappropriate camping. You cannot do anything about it; there is no enforcement. They have no enforcement authority in the act right now, absolutely nothing, except through the other enforcement, RNC or other enforcement authorities. That allows them to be able to preserve the integrity and the purpose, and to carry out functions of the park and be able to take the necessary action for some people who do not abide by it.

You might decide to go up there with your saw and you want to cut a pickup load of wood up on the park, and the park has no authority to stop you. That is to preserve the integrity of the park. It is not to intrude on Memorial University, the Confederation Building, and other grounds that have other authorities that deal with these. It is to give authority to them to be able to run that park properly, to treat it as a park, to protect the integrity of the park, and to allow, actually, some of the peace and quiet that people can enjoy when they into a park area.

Anything that would be contrary to the regulations (inaudible) they cannot do it now; they have to depend on some other authority. It is not to take abuse of the power. On the board of that commission up there, Memorial University is represented, the city council is represented, the Pippy family is represented, the homeowners are represented, an official of my department is on the park, and I think there are only two other people, I believe, or three, on the park overall on the commission, and their authority is to represent all of the interests on that park. There are numerous opportunities.

Some of the other clauses, other than your direct question there, I think I probably mentioned a little in second reading. Some of the other things we are proposing to do, for example, there are big demands on camping in the park. It needs extra space. We wanted authority to be able to - authority must come from Cabinet to borrow, but in order to be able to go out as an entity now, and if you wanted to apply and get funding from, let's say, ACOA, then ACOA could provide funding that would be 50 per cent interest free to increase the campsites to allow access by more people. We could borrow interest free, but it would have authority and a business plan would have to be submitted to Cabinet and approved before this could happen.

That is basically what is entailed. Your specific question there was an enforcement part, I know, but they are some of the things. We are looking at enhancing that park, the integrity of it, to preserve it and to have an appropriate enforcement to be able to do something without having to depend on some other authority in certain matters that would not be of a more criminal or more serious nature, at least to be able to do it.

I am not an expert in provincial parks, but I understand people in provincial parks now have the right, and the officers, to go in and to ensure that there is no unruly behaviour, there is no damage done to the cutting in those parks, and any of these natures, inappropriate camping there, that people are coming in without permits or using it inappropriately. They can do it. We cannot do it in Pippy Park. We are just extending a right to be able to do some of these things to preserve the integrity of the park for people who want to go in and enjoy it.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly understand the need for the park to be able to control activity within its boundaries, such as a provincial camping park might have. Obviously, if it is a camping ground up in Pippy Park and a camper is engaged in unruly behaviour, I can understand being kicked out of the park the same as someone might be kicked out of Butterpot if they are causing trouble, and they will not quiet down and it is the twenty-fourth....

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I have never been kicked out, I say to the - the Government House Leader claims to have been kicked out. I have certainly spent May 24 weekends in Butterpot Park many, many years ago, Mr. Chairman. I can understand park authorities and officials having the right to kick out somebody who is misbehaving and will not conform to behaviour to the norm that is expected, but I would say, Mr. Chairman, that when we say that a person may be expelled by the commission it seems to me to be some sort of power being given to the commission as a whole to say that the Minister of Finance, for example, is expelled from the park, or from the public areas of the park.

Maybe it is not intended that the commission itself be given that power, but that is really a power that might be exercised by an enforcement officer in the kind of circumstances that we have just spoken about, and that the minister spoke about in terms of making sure that you cannot go cutting trees. Obviously, you cannot have to call the police - for example, if a park officer, if an official of Pippy Park, sees somebody with a chainsaw going in over Three Pond Barrens with a pickup truck hoping to get a load of wood, you would not necessarily have to call the RNC to try to stop them. I would not expect that you would have to call the RNC to try and stop somebody with a chainsaw going in to get a load of wood in Pippy Park. Fair enough, I have no problem with that. In fact, I have no problem being expelled from the campground if somebody is behaving in such an unruly fashion and, after being given proper warning, refuses to behave themselves, or being drunk and disorderly, or any other thing like that. It just seems to me that we have a very general power here that a person who contravenes the act may be expelled from public land by the commission - because the public land, as I pointed out, is the whole park itself in which there are houses, there is a university, there are student residents, there is all sorts of activity that goes on, the golf course and everything else. Is it the intention that certain people will be interdicted and refused entry by the commission to the park because they have behaved badly in the past or they have broken the regulation? I do not know if that is the intention or not, but that is the kind of authority, I think, that the commission is being given under these regulations.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 40 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Before we move on, Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions to ask on that. I do not know if the minister has explained that before or not, but this bill, it says, will allow the commission to borrow money and to incorporate segments of its business operation. How much money are they talking about borrowing, and what would the money be used for is the first question.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

No decision has been made to borrow any money. If they want to borrow money, they would have to come to government with a business plan, come to Cabinet. Cabinet would have to approve that before they can borrow. Right now, they have no authority. They still must get approval from Cabinet to do that.

One of the reasons for doing this is to allow - it is an entity of government. It cannot now, technically, access federal funding or go out to ACOA and get money. Now we can get funding and qualify for 50 per cent interest free and those type of things, avenues.

There are plans. I know there was a plan laid out. It was done, I think, under the previous government, on the planning of the park. I know that some of the demands on the park up there, there are inadequate sites and there is an overflow space. One of the things being looked at now, what will develop on that will depend on them coming together with a plan, a proposal, and if it makes sense to the government that it is not going to be costing taxpayers money on this issue, to come forward with it, maybe improve the campsites, maybe extend services in the other areas to accommodate more people. They are some of the things they would like to do.

They would like to enhance the park to allow more to be able to use, and obviously make it, certainly, a paying proposition. They will get a return if they go down that road; that is some of the preliminary talk on that. To give them authority to be able to do that, it would still have to come back to the table, around Cabinet, to give approval. Then they could go ahead provided they have sound business plan to be able to do it, and a sound business plan might be: Well, we can increase this and here is what we would get, maybe a recovery. We might recover a cost in six years or seven years. That would sound like a sound business plan to me when it is fully utilized, and sometimes the overflow is full.

Things of that nature give a flexibility that we do not have to foot at all. We might be able to get funding from another source to help access funding in those particular areas.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To incorporate segments into its business operations - what portions or segments of Pippy Park are not now incorporated under its business operations?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Under Pippy Park there is the Pippy Park Commission and there is Thomas Development which is still a subsidiary. Thomas Development is the subsidiary. The plan on Thomas Development, while the authority may not be needed under this Act to do it, you still could do it anyway. The plan on Thomas Development, as looking at - we are a believer overall that government shouldn't be subsiding golf. That is one example in Thomas Development. The plan is: Right now there has been a significant cost that government has been pouring in for the last number of years, so we have tried to stop the bleeding of hundreds of thousands of dollars of public money toward a golfing operation. We also have, this year, by the way - we don't need legislative authority, we have already now moved the operation of that building up on the hill, you see there, the club house that is now paid off this year, and moved that under the authority of the operation of the golf course. It used to be run with Pippy Park. Pippy Park may go home in the evening at 4:30 or 5:00. That has to be fundamental to the operation of a golf course, that building. That was run and managed through the Pippy Park Commission and not through Thomas Development.

There was a request by Thomas Development Board previously, in the last year or so, that they wanted to dissolve it and move out and didn't want to be involved anymore. We are following that request to collapse Thomas Development. We are going to move on that and collapse Thomas Development, or leave it as an entity. The people involved in it had requested government to move forward last year and change that. Most of the people on the Board of Thomas Development are involved with that since its beginning. I know two or three of them have been founders up there. The golf association is represented, I think, the women's golf - there is a whole variety.

What we are looking at doing is, we are looking at moving into an entity, we are looking at having an entity to run it. It would still be under the Pippy Park umbrella. Nothing will change in the structure, it will still be a subsidiary of Pippy Park, except it won't be a Thomas Development subsidiary. It may be called by a different name. That will allow that.

One of the things happening there, on the park generally speaking - now, segments of the golf course haven't been the most profitable. We have taken a lot of action to make changes. Before I came into the department, there were roughly 1,400 free passes a year for rounds of golf given away. We have stopped free golf up at the park. The only ones who get free golf are people who have the life membership, they are given to them as founders, and for promotions and other aspects. Nobody in government has gone up to get a round of free golf in Pippy Park, not me as Minister responsible - I went up five times a year and paid for my golf.

We are cutting the losses and we are telling them we want to make it pay. We should not be in the business of subsidizing people to play golf. That can be done without changing this. That can be done anyway. We have taken steps to do that but we are looking at another structure because the people specifically requested a year ago they did not want to be involved anymore with that and we are moving to shift that. So, that is on their specific request. We have met with the interested people in that and we have indicated the direction we are moving here. We do not want it to be a subsidy on the taxpayers. We want to make it pay.

In line with Pippy Park, I will just tie it into the big picture. Pippy Park was getting funding continuously from government to run their operation. We would like to see the golf course make a profit. We would like it to subsidize park operations up there, to enhance the park. We scaled back the budget from $400,000 of a grant to $350,000 this year. The plan is - hopefully, over the longer term - to phase it out and make it a paying operation and use the profits in there to be able to enhance and operate the park there. That is the plan. It does not have to have a part of this bill to be able to change an entity or to make change. We have already moved to incorporate the operation of that clubhouse and so on under Thomas Development, but there will be a different entity running it other than Thomas Development because we are following through with their request.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If you have already done that, then why do you need to incorporate this into the bill, I say to the minister?

The other thing is minister - I do not know if you are a golfer yourself or not, but there is a lot of people in this Province who think that golf is a sport. I am a golfer.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Probably not a very good one, I say. Probably as good as the Minister of Tourism, or used to be Tourism, but that is beside the point.

The fact of the matter is, that this is the only public golf course in the city and probably in the Province, and because it is a public golf course and you do not have memberships and it has not become an elitist club like some have become: I am wondering why you want to make it a for-profit organization? - which will probably mean down the road that it will be beyond the reach for the average person in this Province to be able to go and be able to afford a reasonable round of golf. You talk about, we should not be subsidizing golf. Well, if you look at it - and the newly minted Minister of Tourism might want to argue that golf is a sport, just the same as football or rugby. In the Budget last spring, I think we announced $3 million for a rugby pitch or a building where people would be able to go and practice rugby and stuff like that. So, we have always subsidized recreation in the Province, whether it be hockey or whether it be swimming, any of those sports. So, what I am saying is that, obviously, you do not think golf is a sport that needs a subsidy.

There are a couple of questions I want to ask. For example, if you are going to make this a not-for-profit organization and it has to sink or swim on its own, do you foresee that maybe that golf course could go into bankruptcy, and what would happen to the land? The other thing is, like I said earlier, the rest of the golf courses in the city are private golf courses, owned and operated by individuals. The Premier has two in the area. For example, he has one, The Wilds and he has one, Willow Brook. He has three actually: The Wilds, Willow Brook and the Woods; the three w's. What I am wondering is, if, for example, you make this for-profit organization on the hill, is it being done because you are getting complaints from other golf courses, private golf courses, for example, Bally Hally, the Woods, The Wilds, the Willow Brook or Clovelly Trails? Are they complaining to government that golf is too cheap in Pippy Park and, as a result, you need to make it a for-profit golf course so that you are not unfairly competing with the privately owned golf courses?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

No, no one has complained to me. I have golfed at Clovelly this year. I went down four or five Tuesday mornings. I paid $38. I golfed at Pippy Park. I paid around the same amount, up in Pippy Park, this past year. I have golfed there and I have probably golfed maybe a couple of more times this year otherwise. Our rate is marginally - it was marginally lower in the past. There is no plan on making changes there, other than what I have indicated to them. We have met with the commission on that.

We had a request, after I came in, that they wanted to get out of Thomas Development; the people who have been involved in that and some of the founders. We are following through on that request. We can do that without any - technically be changed. We want a separate entity because they wanted to move out of that. The people wanted to relinquish the rights. Some of them who - twenty-five years ago - founded it, specifically asked that of us; asked the department with that. We are ceding to their request to remove it and set up another structure. Thomas Development can stay. It is a non-profit now. I am not hellbent on getting a profit up there, but I am not so sure that the taxpayers of the Province should be subsidizing losses for playing golf in the Province. I do not know if it is a wise use of taxpayers' money.

I feel the opportunity of a public golf course, I believe in it. Based on the quality of the course - the rate should be competitive, based on the quality. I personally feel the rate should be lower than you play at Clovelly, or The Wilds, or Terra Nova. I feel they should be lower because it is not the same quality of a golf course. You should pay inline with the quality of a course you are playing on. We are looking at, hopefully, a break even. We have the building paid off. There are loans out there still on course development that were there. We have tried to take that down. We have tried to eliminate unlimited access at golf and not paying for it. We came in and looked at the operation. I was amazed that 1,400 rounds of golf were given out. I was offered twenty and thirty in the past, while in the Opposition, and I know several of us were. I said that has to stop. We cannot be subsidizing members of government. We cannot be subsidizing people who we want to play up there. We eliminate it, carte blanche. I often do an automatic booking advance and go up and rent a cart.

We are looking at not having any abuse of use up there. We have stopped that from day one and we are trying to get it back where we are going to have a lower reduction. That has nothing to do with the operation. In fact, in this bill here, it has nothing to do with it. But, in answer to your question, I am being fully open with any aspects of it and where we are planning on going. I will make no bones about it. It should be competitive. It should be inline with a public. If there is a public purpose to be served, there was at the time when it started, when there was no other - you could not get a round of golf in this city anywhere. It was nearly impossible. There was one club that was private. Right now, you can book. There are even advanced sales out. You can buy rounds of golf for this year up to Pippy Park, I think, for $1,200 or so. There are different packages out. Unlimited access to it. You can check and go in and buy them for next year. We invite everybody to do that if they want to. Look at the rates. Look at where they compare. That is public information. We would like people to use it because the more who uses it, the better it is for us. We would like to have the opportunity there, but the time may come, or may never come, but we do not think we should be subsidizing hundreds of thousands of dollars in operations here. We have streamlined the operation. We have talked to the unions involved up there. We are combining structures where there are two unions involved. They have been spoken to on that issue up there. We are not looking at change. There are successor rights. We have combined the CAW, I think, and NAPE. They are the two involved there and we have been trying to work harmoniously up there. In fact, we made changes this past year. No one even heard about it, that Pippy Park relinquished the operation - the clubhouse that was operated by NAPE employees, and normally there were CAW employees who operated on TDC, that is who is responsible for them. We allowed transition of benefits from one to another and it has gone smoothly in that regard. We have had no problems.

So, that is strictly the operational items outside this bill, but I am free to answer any questions on it. Even if it is not pertinent to this particular bill here, I will certainly be open with it and any problems or any questions, I will answer them.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I say to the minister, he said that he was able to play in Clovelly for $38 this year and things like that.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is Tuesday mornings, $38 down there.

MR. REID: Yes, but the reason he was able to play at Clovelly - probably on the day that you played there, the only reason you were allowed to play there that day is because of members. Part of that course is for membership only. I say to the minister, you probably would not have been able to book a game had there been members who wanted to play golf that day and had booked, because you would not have been allowed on it. What I am saying is that it wouldn't be a public -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I say to the minister, there are issues that need to be raised. We are trying to find out, and if you have a problem with that, then let me know. I know it is not an issue that affects a lot of people in the Province but it does affect some. You know, most of the legislation we bring before the House of Assembly does not affect everybody in the Province. What I am trying to say here is that the minute you make a course like Pippy Park, that was established by a bunch of volunteers in the Province, once you make that a for-profit organization, it is probably not going to survive very long. It is not going to survive very long. You talk about losing money on the course and stuff, but I ask the minister: Overall for the budget of Pippy Park for the Pippy Park Commission including the golf course, did they lose money last year, did they break even, or they did they make money on the overall operation of the Pippy Park Commission?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I did not get the statements for this year, but to my knowledge it has never made money. It has been subsidized for as long as I can remember up in Pippy Park. It has never made money. TDC is supposing to be paying Pippy Park $250,000 a year. That was the agreement with the previous government. It got paid some fee in the first year or so, but it hasn't been paid in the last few years. Nothing has been paid to Pippy Park for operating, that $250,000 fee that this non-profit Thomas Development Corporation has been established. They have been paying off the Clubhouse. A new corporation would be non-profit. It is not driven in to make money. If it can break even I would be delighted.

Whether we should keep subsidizing it, that is a question we will deal with. If it gets there, we will give them the building to help them operate. Go out and operate it. To break even out there should be the goal. It is a non-profit organization. It is not one that is geared to make profit. We would not want it to be a drag on Pippy Park up there, on the park and other areas, and not a drag on government either. We are funding money into it. Government, before we came in, gave a grant, I think, an extra $200,000 or more. We do have a line of credit there. We are trying to stop the bleeding there and to get it into an operation that can operate as a public golf course in a non-profit organization, an non-profit entity and so on, with rates in line with the quality of service that they would provide up there. We think we can do a better job of doing that and have a good quality golf course in doing it open to the public.

We have no intention of going out and turning it over to private hands. If anybody wants it and they want to make a proposal to us, the government, that will be entertained. I see value in maintaining a public golf course, but I am not sure if I see a value if we have to keep pumping hundreds of thousands into it. I do not know whether that is good use of taxpayers money. If that day arrives, give them a chance to operate, give them a chance to restructure it up there, and use some of the entities and so on that they did not have before, like they had this year.

By the way, the statements are published each year and anybody who needs to know that, I am certainly available to provide anything on any aspect of that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was not going to ask any more questions, but the minister just raised one himself. First I think you said you had no interest in privatizing it, but then you said if somebody wants to go up and operate it and wants to put forward a proposal to government to go up and operate - what is the distinction between that and privatization of the golf course?

MR. SULLIVAN: I said if anyone is interested pass it in. Government is certainly not going to say we are not going to look at it, I suppose.

MR. REID: So what the minister is saying is that he is willing to entertain the privatization of the golf course in Pippy Park?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I did not say that.

MR. REID: Well I think, minister, if you did not say it you should clarify it, because I will certainly look at Hansard and see what you just said.

My understanding is that if anyone wants to put forward a proposal to either privatize Pippy Park or to go up and operate the golf course in Pippy Park, then you would be willing to entertain it if it came before government.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

We are going to move to Bill 32 in Committee, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do not have a lot to say at the Committee stage of this Bill, but I do want to respond because the minister seemed to, for some reason, want to take the opportunity to close debate to attack me on the legislation, when I made a speech in support of the legislation and supported the changes that were being made in Bill 32.

The minister is very touchy today in the House for some reason. Ever since Question Period, it has been a very touchy day in the House of Assembly. What I said, in my speech in second reading, was that forestry is a very complicated matter, and I said that the public is not normally engaged in the issues of the forestry unless there is a crisis. Now, I did not talk about the planning process. I understand the planning process, I know about the planning process, and I know it takes some eighteen months sometimes to put together a forestry plan. In fact, I was critical of the process in years past because, for example, to have a meeting to discuss a forestry plan on the Sunday night of the May 24th weekend on three days notice was not public consultation as far as I was concerned.

The public is consulted from time to time, sometimes in the right way, sometimes in the wrong way. What I said was that the public, as a whole, is not generally engaged in forestry issues until there is a crisis, whether it is a crisis about the two paper machines in Grand Falls or whether it is a crisis about uses of the forest industry.

MR. E. BYRNE: I apologize.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you. The minister has apologized and I accept that.

I understand that we have processes that people are engaged in on an ongoing basis and consultation takes place - not a problem. I was not talking about that. I was talking about the public as a whole being engaged in forestry issues.

We do have a crisis in terms of fiber in this Province. I think we do. Maybe the minister has solved the problem, but I remember sitting in this House and receiving a twenty-year forestry plan which said that we were going to run out of wood in fifteen years. That was about fifteen years ago. Maybe the minister has fixed this, but we have not seen the latest twenty-year plan. I am very anxiously looking forward to it, because if this minister has managed to fix it in the last two years, I will be the first one to congratulate him. If he has solved all of those problems then we can tell it to whoever wants to run Stephenville, if Abitibi consolidated does not, that there is lots of wood.

My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that when that mill was started up twenty years ago they were only promised a twenty-year supply of wood. That was all. No guarantees beyond twenty years because the Province did not have the wood to promise. That is my understanding. Now I may be dead wrong. I may be totally ignorant. I am only going by documents and contracts that were made, documents that were tabled in this House predicting the fiber shortage and the wood supply reports in this Province, showing that we had a crisis. We have heard Premiers, not this Premier past Premiers, talk about the crisis in the wood supply. If this minister has fixed it, I will be the first one to congratulate him.

I look forward to the next twenty-year plan being tabled in this House showing the projections for the future and showing us what kind of forest regeneration has taken place. How much of our forest is no longer in the category of NSR - not sufficiently rejuvenated? The last reports that I have seen show that very little or a very small percentage of forest that has been cut over this Province has been regenerated for a second generation, and has criticized government policy by saying that their projections and their Annual Allowable Cuts that have been projected scientifically by government are, in fact, not helpful in terms of predicting the wood that is commercially available for cutting in the future. They are subject to criticism.

I say to the minister that, just because I happen to be in a district which has a little forest, not very much, that I do not know anything about the forest industry. I happen to know a little bit about it. I happen to have a great interest in ensuring that our forests in this Province are sustainable, and that we have a variety of uses.

I spoke in this House on many occasions about a very promising and very forward-looking report done by the Senate of Canada, of all people, talking about forestry in this country, and how forestry can be managed better. I would submit -

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't know what they are doing it for.

MR. HARRIS: Someone said, I don't know why they are doing it. Well, maybe it is a good thing for them to be doing it, because nobody else did the kind of comprehensive study that they did back in 1999, that offers some suggestions as to how forestry across this country can be managed better to provide for the multiplicity of uses that people want to make of our forest resources.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for apologizing for some of the things he said. I do support the legislation. I do believe that there is a great deal of consultation, but it is something that there ought to be more general discussion about. I am hoping, Mr. Chairman - and this is why I mentioned Bill 27, because I want to remind not only this minister but members of this House about a very important part of Bill 27. That is why I do not want to see it cut short. I do not want to see any agreement made to eliminate Bill 27, whether it be the requirement for the two-machine operation - very important to the people of Grand Falls. That is an important part of Bill 27, because in Bill 27 it says if you do not run two mills you are going to lose you timber licences.

That is the part that I think the minister has been talking about lately, but there are other parts of that legislation that I think are extremely important to the future of the forests in this Province, because what it does say is that the timber licences that were granted, that were going to expire, they are subject to being renewed. Up until Bill 27, the discussions about the renewal were taking place between the minister and his officials behind closed doors. The public did not know anything about it. Now we have a provision - and I have to take some credit for that because I introduced the amendment to the legislation - that there is required to be a public consultation process for a period starting about twelve months before it expires so that everybody who has an interest in the forestry knows that they are going to have some input into whether or not the renewal period should be 100 years, fifty years, or twenty years; what uses are going to be permitted under these new timber leases; what are the conditions going to be; and whether or not the forest resources are going to be shared in a different way than they have been in the past. One of our problems - and governments, successive governments, have been trying to deal with this for the past twenty-five years at least, certainly since I have been here we have been trying to deal with it - is the fact that the timber companies, or the paper companies, have virtually exclusive use of much of the forest land of the Province. It has been very difficult to make arrangements so that sawlogs be available to lumber producers. That is why the minister meets with them regularly to make sure that there is an opportunity to get sawlogs available so that we can have a lumber production as well as paper production in the Province; because the paper companies have been focused and concentrated on one thing, virtually, and one thing only, the production of paper.

The forestry in this Province can produce a lot more than newsprint. Maybe newsprint is not the most profitable thing that can be produced by our forests. I am not saying that we should close down our mills, not at all, but what I am saying is that the forest uses, we must be building our forest industry on multiple use of forest resources and maximizing the value for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, both in employment and in recreation and tourism and all the other forestry values that we have that are expounded on so well by the report of the Senate going back several years ago.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I hope we have changed the tone of the debate a little bit. I do support the legislation. I hope the minister has - when we get the twenty-year forest report, I anxiously look forward to seeing what changes, what improvements, have been made in the projections as a result of what measures have been taken in the last number of years to try to improve the productivity of our forest and the sustainability of our forest industries.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I am not going to belabour the point. Certainly, without qualification or hesitation, I would offer an apology to the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi, based upon the clarification of his comments, because I certainly did not mean to leave an impression, because he represents a district like Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, that he knows nothing about the forestry industry. I represent a district within the city boundaries, Kilbride-Goulds area. There is a sawmill operator and some small enterprises, but you would not categorize it as a forest industry. Like himself, I have an interest in the sustainable resource development public policy, and forestry happens to fall into that, even prior to being appointed as minister.

Having said that, I do just want to say to him, in terms of the public process, one of the features of this bill, too, is that it requires public consultation for operators adjacent to the geographic area where they are. It requires that be reported and it requires a more open process in terms of the management of the forest industry.

There is no doubt there are challenges with fibre issues in the Province generally, but I think we need to be careful in terms of using the word crisis, because crisis means something is imminent, in my view, that what we are doing now will come to a halt, and it leaves an impression - this is just my own particular opinion - that is not necessarily real. I think this year, we are required some time this year, to hold our own consultation with industry with respect to the upcoming forestry plan for the Province and then some time early in the new year, based upon regulation and legislation, we must release that. Like yourself, I am looking forward to that process unfolding in the very near future.

With that, Mr. Chair, I will take my seat.

Thank you.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Forestry Act." (Bill 32)

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: Clauses 2 and 3.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 and 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 and 3 are carried.

On motion, clause 2 and 3 carried.

CLERK: Clause 4.

CHAIR: Shall clause 4 carry?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to add an amendment. I will read it out first, to add a clause.

"Subclause 4(2) of the Bill is amended by adding immediately after the proposed subsection 7(6) the following: (7) The minister, with the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council..." - which is Cabinet - "...may vary the time by which a sustainable forest management plan is to expire."

Really, what this would allow, it would allow the variation of the due date for a sustainable forest management plan to allow the concurrent filing of plans presently due at differing dates. That is the Explanatory Note on the bill. Now, let me put it in a little more straighter sort of language so people can understand.

Right now that will allow the minister, whether it is me today or some future minister, whoever he or she may be, that in some districts plans are expiring at different times. So, in order to ensure that, on a go-forward basis, all plans in all districts are going to concurrently expire, which allows for a more efficient forestry management process, this amendment, which was suggested by the Department of Justice, would be seen as beneficial, that would allow that to be done.

I, in my now capacity as the Minister Responsible for Forestry, would not have the exclusive domain or power to make that decision myself, so there is a vetting process that must be gone through. The Cabinet process, in terms of a Cabinet Paper, must be generated for Cabinet.

Really, all it does is provide just a little bit of flexibility for a very short period of time until all the plans can be lined up to expire on a concurrent basis, essentially, to allow for a more efficient forestry management process as we move into this new area.

CHAIR: Order, please!

It is moved by the hon. Government House Leader that clause 4 of Bill 32 be amended. The Chair has had an opportunity to look at the amendment and rules that the amendment is in order. Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment to clause 4 of Bill 32?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt clause 4, as amended?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 4 is carried as amended.

On motion, clause 4, as amended, carried.

CLERK: Clauses 5 to 19.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 5 to 19 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 5 to 19 are carried.

On motion, clauses 5 through 19 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 Forestry 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 32, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act, carried with an amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 32 is carried with an amendment.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: 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: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 44 carried without amendment, and Bills 24 and 32 carried with amendments 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 that Bill 44, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991, has passed without amendment.

When shall this 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: Now.

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

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

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

With leave, I move that Bill 44, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: I do understand leave has been granted. I did not hear any objections.

It is moved and seconded that Bill 44, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 44, An Act To Amend the Provincial Court 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 Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill 44)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 44 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 Provincial Court Act, 1991," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 44)

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

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

I move third reading of An Act To Amend The Forestry Act. (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER: Before we do third readings we will have to take the Committee report and do the procedure.

MR. E. BYRNE: Okay.

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 that Bill 24, An Act To Revise The Law About Pensions For Members Of The House Of Assembly has been passed with some amendments.

When shall this report be received?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

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 amendments to Bill 24.

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 that these amendments be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: The second reading of the amendments to Bill 24.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall Bill 24, An Act To Revise The Law About Pensions For Members Of The House Of Assembly, 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.

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

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

I move third reading of An Act To Revise The Law About Pensions For Members Of The House Of Assembly. (Bill 24)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 24, An Act To Revise The Law About Pensions For Members Of The House Of Assembly be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 24 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 Revise The Law About Pensions For Members Of The House Of Assembly. (Bill 24)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 24 has now been read a third time. It is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law About Pensions For Members Of The House Of Assembly," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 24)

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports the Committee have considered the matter to them referred and have directed him to report that Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act, has been passed with some amendments.

When shall this report be received?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

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 32, the Forestry Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said amendments to Bill 32 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: A reading of the amendment to Bill 32.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall Bill 32 be read a third time? Now?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move third reading of An Act To Amend The Forestry Act. (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act be now read a third time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 32 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 Forestry Act. (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 32 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Forestry Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 32)

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

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

I do now move that the House adjourn and return on this Monday forthcoming.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that this House do now adjourn until Monday, November 28 at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

All those in agreement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against?

Motion carried.

This House now stands adjourned until Monday, November 28 at 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, November 28 at 1:30 p.m.