May 9, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 21


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The Chair would like to rule on the Notice of Motion given by the Leader of the Opposition.

On May 7th the Leader of the Opposition stood to give notice that he would move that the House, in accordance with Standing Order 81(4)(a) of the House of Commons extend the time for consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Mines and Energy beyond May 13th .

Our Standing Orders require that the Committees examining the Estimates put all questions needed to carry the subheads of each head of expenditure at the conclusion of fifteen sitting days from the reference of the Estimates to them. That is Standing Order 75(1). This time will have elapsed on Monday, May 13th .

The Leader of the Opposition bases his request on Standing Order 1(2)(b) of our Standing Orders which deals with the application of the Standing Orders in cases not provided for in our own Standing Orders. Standing Order 1(2) states: "In all cases not provided for in these Standing Orders or by sessional or other orders of the House, the Speaker shall be guided by the following in the order in which they are stated: (a) the usages customs and precedents of this House; (b) the Standing Orders and sessional orders and forms and usages, customs and precedents of the House of Commons of Canada and those of any other province or territory in Canada."

It is the view of the Chair that the purpose of this Standing Order is to provide a guide for the Chair in interpreting our own Standing Orders, usages and precedents in cases where there is doubt.

It is not, in our opinion, intended to give the House or Members of the House flexibility to adopt the Standing Orders of other jurisdictions which have practices different from our own. There are many practices and rules in the House of Commons and elsewhere which differ from our own. It would not be practicable or reasonable to interpret Standing Order 1(2) as the hon. member is suggesting.

In respect of the time frame for dealing with the Estimates, the House has adopted a standing order which is quite clear. There is no need to resort to the Standing Orders or practices of any other jurisdiction for its interpretation. The Chair is therefore of the opinion that the Notice of Motion given by the Leader of the Opposition is out of order as it is based on an erroneous interpretation of Standing Order 1(2).

The effect of this motion is to institute an amendment to our Standing Orders. The House does introduce such amendments from time to time, and most recently in 1999. The usual method of amending the Standing Orders is for the House to commission the Standing Orders Committee to review the rules and make recommendations, and if they decide an amendment is in order, they will do that. The Leader of the Opposition or any member, of course, is free to pursue this avenue to bring about any changes he considers desirable.

Before we begin our routine proceedings, the Chair would like to introduce in the Speaker's gallery today and welcome these people to the House of Assembly, Elvind Reiten, President and CEO of Norsk Hydro in Norway; and Morton Ruud, President -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Morton Ruud, President of Exploration and Production International with Norsk Hydro in Norway -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: - and Mr. Torgeir Opdahl, President of Norsk Hydro Canada - Oil & Gas in the Calgary office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well I would like to welcome to the gallery today fifty-five Grade 7 students from Classes 702 & 704 of St. Paul's Intermediate School in the District of Gander, and they are accompanied by teachers: Wayne Walsh, Bob Sinnott, and Marie Matheson.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House of Assembly today to congratulate an exceptional young lady for a recent achievement and indeed, to commend her for displaying an excellence in all of her endeavours.

From her early childhood, Meghan Farrell of Marystown has brought pride to her family, her school, her church and her community through her singing at most community functions, her volunteer activities and her high academic standards.

This past month, Meghan displayed an ability, strength and determination at a time of great sadness and trauma in her life. Just prior to Easter, Meghan's father, Frank Farrell, died suddenly here in St. John's. As a matter of fact, Frank had driven to St. John's with me for a doctor's appointment a few days previous and had intended to return home with me on Friday. He died in his sleep early that Friday morning.

Meghan was the pride of her parents, Betty and Frank's lives, and her intended homecoming gift for him that weekend was sharing the excitement of having won the Father John Murray Fourth Degree Knights of Columbus Assembly speakoff in Marystown.

Last week, Mr. Speaker, Meghan won the provincial Knights of Columbus Speakoff that was held in Gander. My colleague, the hon. Sandra Kelly, was present for that event and she tells me that Meghan's delivery of her speech was phenomenal in every way.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Meghan on this accomplishment and I sincerely wish her success in all of her endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I rise to offer congratulations to a gentleman and friend who this evening, at a ceremony at the Holiday Inn will be named by the Newfoundland and Labrador Region of Red Cross as this year's recipient of the Association's Humanitarian Award.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Myrle Vokey epitomizes the true spirit of volunteerism. A few months ago, he was the recipient of the Newfoundland and Labrador Volunteer Medal. On the back of that medal, in Latin, is written "Not for oneself, but for others".

For those of us who have had the pleasure of working and interacting with Myrle Vokey, we all agree that this inscription clearly summarizes the commitment and dedication he has demonstrated to his community, to his Province, to Canada and to the world.

Dr. Myrle Vokey has received the Canadian Medal of Honour for Volunteering and has also received awards from the United States, Venezuela and Korea.

The outstanding contributions Dr. Myrle Vokey has made to the Canadian Red Cross have been recognized not only through the Distinguished Service Medal he received earlier, but also as a recipient of the highest award of the Society, the Order of Red Cross. An outstanding leader, Myrle Vokey has served at the grassroots level and as President of the Red Cross in Newfoundland and Labrador. From 1993-1995, he was elected as the first and only Newfoundland person to serve as National President of the Canadian Red Cross. In that capacity, Myrle represented Canada and made countless presentations at international meetings and conferences in North and South America, Europe and the Far East.

Born and educated on Bell Island, Dr. Vokey attended Memorial University, the University of New Brunswick, and holds a doctorate from the University of Toronto.

Mr. Speaker, Myrle Vokey is a remarkable individual, known for his leadership qualities, his musical talents, his compassion and his sense of humor. Myrle Vokey describes himself as "an ordinary person", but the Red Cross and all of us would describe him as "an ordinary person doing extraordinary things".

As a person who has spent so much of his life promoting mutual understanding and friendship amongst all people, he exemplifies the true spirit of humanity.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in extending congratulations to that young fellow from Bell Island who has touched so many lives so positively and so consistently, and who is so deserving of all the accolades he will hear later this evening at the awards ceremony.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform members of this hon. House of several events being initiated in Corner Brook as part of National Forest Week, May 5-11.

As members are aware, Corner Brook has been designated this year's Forestry Capital of Canada by the Canadian Forestry Association - a designation, Mr. Speaker, that recognizes a community which is noteworthy because of its commitment to and its dependence on its forest resources.

A key component to Corner Brook's bid for designation as Forestry Capital of Canada was its proposed legacy project, a project which outlines plans from an extension to the C. C. Loughlin Elementary schoolyard naturalization project.

A second component of its successful bid was the proposed McTree initiative, which will see more than 2,300 books distributed to Kindergarten to Grade 6 students throughout the entire Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating the Corner Brook Forestry Capital committee's planned events for National Forestry Week, not only in the City of Corner Brook but also throughout the entire Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, in the early 1900s, Industry Canada, along with their founding partner, the Telephone Pioneers, created an organization called Computers for Schools. Their objective is to collect, repair and refurbish donated surplus computers from government and private sector to distribute freely to schools and libraries.

Recently, Computers for Schools delivered a large shipment of 264 computers to the Avalon West School District offices in Spaniard's Bay. Those computers came from the national Computers for Schools depot in Hull, Quebec, with help from a few local companies organized by Mr. Clarence Gosse.

Kindergarten students from Holy Redeemer Elementary in Spaniard's Bay were invited for the arrival of the merchandise. Their school received a total of six of these available computers.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Computers for Schools operation on a job well done. They have become a very successful service that will most certainly provide students with valuable technology.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity today to update the House of Assembly on the status of government's municipal infrastructure programs.

As members are aware, a three-year $261 million municipal infrastructure program was announced with the recent Budget.

Mr. Speaker, approximately $108 million was targeted to be spent under a Multi-Year Municipal Capital Works Program. Projects under this program are cost-shared on a 50/50 basis with municipalities. I am happy to report that we are now in the process of negotiating multi-year agreements with fourteen municipalities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what my critic in the Opposition has implied, this funding is not being allocated on the basis of politics nor quarterly polling. In fact, over $68 million has been targeted for seven towns or cities which are, either in whole or in part, within the electoral districts held by members of the Opposition parties.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, there is no mystery about the timing of the announcements. These announcements occur around the same time every year. The dates for the past three years are: in 1999 - May 18; in 2000 - May 26; and in 2001 - May 7.

Mr. Speaker, the construction season is upon us. The towns are anxious to proceed, and the construction industry is anxious to get the work. I would challenge anyone to identify a city or town on our project list which does not legitimately need this multi-year capital works funding.

Mr. Speaker, we are also moving forward with implementation of the two other components of our $261 million capital works program. Projects to be funded under the $63 million Municipal Capital Works Program are now being finalized, and announcements will be forthcoming shortly. We are also in the process of consulting with our federal colleagues on $90 million worth of projects to be funded under the Canada-Newfoundland Infrastructure Program over the next three years.

Mr. Speaker, the municipal share of capital costs for water and sewer projects will continue to be determined in accordance with our Variable Cost-Sharing Guidelines. This allows all towns to participate in the capital works program by establishing cost-sharing ratios on the basis of ability to pay. In some cases, the Province will pay up to 90 per cent of project costs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, this is an innovation in municipal infrastructure financing of which I am quite proud.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just like to emphasize that municipal infrastructure funding in the Province is allocated on the basis of need and sound engineering advice. I can say without reservation that every town which gets a project, needs it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Usually I would thank the minister for giving me an advance copy of his statement. I guess, with the dig he had in on me today, he wanted to wait until the last minute to pass it over so I could read it. Actually, I didn't even read it. I just listened to what the minister just said.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I can say with no doubt that I am glad that any community that needs this funding gets it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: All I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that this started off and it all started to rollout; two Liberal members made their big announcement. I hope he is going to give the courtesy of all members being able to announce it in their districts. We will see, at the end of the day, where it all falls out and where the funding goes to. But, Mr. Speaker, more importantly, he said fourteen communities - this is for the bigger communities, bigger municipalities throughout the Province. My big concern, and we will all be watching very closely, is the smaller communities of this Province who have the desperate need to make sure that it goes to the places that need it the most, because the truth is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: The truth is, Mr. Speaker, a lot of municipalities need it. The truth is that it has fallen far behind when it comes to municipal infrastructure in this Province; when people have sewer in their ditches and on a boil order for twenty years, Mr. Speaker, that is where the need lies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: I will finish by saying this, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my judgment when the entire lot is rolled out and we will see who gets it and who needs it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. I should say his hybrid statement, Mr. Speaker, because it is part statement and part rebuttal to the Official Opposition.

I would like to say that every community in this Province, Mr. Speaker, is in desperate need of funding for infrastructure programs. My district received funding this year, funding that they desperately needed for things that they have to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I say that the timing is important because the construction season in many areas of this Province is very short indeed and the sooner the funding gets released the quicker the work can be done.

As for the elections and the timing of this announcement, Mr. Speaker, with the elections that are taking place in the Province, I would just like to remind everybody in the House that we are in politics.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Education is sponsoring a forum to deal with the problem of bullying in schools. Unfortunately this inappropriate behaviour by a minority of students impacts negatively on the whole school community in which it exists.

This government is committed to providing quality education for our students and this is demonstrated, for example, by our investment in new schools and support of professional development for teachers. However, we also have a responsibility to ensure that the school community is an environment built on a premise of respect for all, where hostility and threats are non existent.

The conference will be held in St. John's on May 30. It will bring together representatives from our school boards, the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, the Federation of School Councils, other government departments and the Safe and Caring Schools Advisory Committee, which includes representation from our police forces. We are also inviting educational psychologists, guidance counsellors, teachers and students. The conference will look at interventions currently in place to deal with bullying and investigate other effective and innovative ways to stop those who bully and discourage these acts of violence. We must build a shared action plan that can be implemented as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, schools are more than books and buildings. Schools are places where students, teachers and staff spend much of their time. Schools are places where children should learn and grow and excel. Schools should be welcoming places. Regrettably, this is not so for some children. Taunting and teasing damages the self confidence of a child; pushing and hitting hurts a child. Sticks and stones do break your bones and names do hurt you. Unfortunately, this behaviour exists in our classrooms and on the playground. We are fortunate that students in this Province have not met the fate of others in this country where a child took his life rather than return to school to face more bullying from fellow students.

I recently had the pleasure of attending a celebration, with my colleague the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, Mr. Jim Walsh, designating Leary's Brook Junior High as a member of Peaceful Schools International. It is the only junior high school in the world to receive this designation. I commend the administration, staff and students for making this happen.

Mr. Speaker, we are taking action now to stop violence and encourage an environment of peace in our schools. Cultivating an atmosphere of respect and tolerance in our schools will promote a culture of peace in our society.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure I speak for this side of the House in certainly agreeing with the minister that there is a serious problem in our schools relating not only to bullying but to violence and other related problems. Any initiative, Mr. Speaker, that this government can put in place to address that is certainly welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: But there is a caution, and I say to the minister that I certainly was involved in the school system for something like twenty years and I have seen the effects of bullying. The physical aggression, the social alienation, the verbal aggression, the intimidation and often, minister, at those that are most vulnerable in our schools. I also know, minister, that there have been a number of forms, a number of papers throughout the 1990s that the initial Williams report called for a forum to get everyone together to address this particular problem.

So, I say to the minister, I welcome this forum but I would more welcome an action plan, a plan from this government that would ensure that schools like Leary's Brook, the program that they have is a universal program throughout this whole Province. I reference, minister, the New Brunswick Government -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: - who, in 1999, did an action plan that certainly needs to be looked at, and one that I would like to see our government put into practice.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Surely, our consciousness has all been raised by tragic incidents reported in the media from other provinces related to school bullying and the consequential tragedies and suicide of some students. It is such an important issue that this forum, of course, is welcome and the minister referred to a shared action plan that we must build together out of this forum. I would ask the minister to go further, that when an action plan is devised that her department see to the implementation of that plan, provide guidelines, and make them mandatory in schools. We have lots of pilot projects and lots of initiatives in various schools, and the Peaceful Schools program is obviously a good example. There are others in Bishops Field School, and in my own district in Virginia Park School -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: These are examples, and what we should do is devise a model, have a Province-wide standard and have the Department of Education responsible to ensure that throughout our school system every child has the protection of a peaceful school and an opportunity for any incidents of bullying and problems to be resolved through a proper process.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are on the very important topic of Voisey's Bay, and my questions are directed to the Minister of Mines and Energy.

Yesterday, Inco announced that it was borrowing some $400 million in U.S. dollars which is equivalent to approximately $630 million Canadian for capital expenditures. My question for the minister is: Do the capital projects that Inco plans to undertake with this borrowing include the development of the mine at Voisey's Bay and the building of a hydromet facility at Argentia?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That, obviously and clearly, is a question that would be best and most appropriately and only in an appropriate fashion, be put to the corporation. I have no mandate to answer questions with respect to capital projects that may be imminent or planned by Inco as an organization.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will ask a follow-up question to that question. Companies who work in the heavy construction industry are saying that Inco and its subsidiary, Voisey's Bay Nickel, are quietly asking companies to bid on construction work at Voisey's Bay. My question for the minister is: Will the minister let the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in on what is happening and, perhaps, share with us some of the details of these invitations and responses by these companies to these invitations?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Any activity that may be ongoing between Inco and any of its current or perspective contractors for any current or perspective project, again, are questions that can only answered by Inco themselves.

I can tell the hon. member this, and I can tell the House again for greater certainty, that anything with respect to which they may be doing in contemplation of something happening on the Voisey's Bay project this year, is being done outside of an arrangement having been successfully concluded between us, as the government, and them, as the organization, to move that project forward. Negotiations have not been completed. There are substantial issues outstanding and until those issues are resolved, anything that they may be doing in terms of a preparatory nature would certainly be something that they are doing on their own account and outside of an agreement that sanctions this project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I know the minister is saying today and he has said in the past that there is no agreement with Inco to develop the mine at Voisey's Bay, but I also know, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier has said a couple of weeks ago that he wants the construction to start at Voisey's Bay as early as this June. I say to the hon. minister, that is only approximately three weeks away. Does the hon. minister know if the Premier plans to meet with Mr. Hand in the near future, and is it possible that on his way back from Houston, that he will stop in Toronto to meet with the Chief Executive Officer of Inco?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not privy to all of the travel plans or meeting schedules that the Premier has but I can tell the hon. member this, that the last member of government who met with Scott Hand was myself as the minister leading the negotiations on behalf of this project. I can tell the hon. member that the Premier has no known scheduled meetings with Scott Hand that I am aware of. I have spoken with the Premier as late as a couple of hours ago, not with respect to this issue but with respect to other matters of government.

The hon. member should understand that the answers that I have given in this House with respect to where this negotiation is, with respect to the status of the negotiations, outline for him and for the people of the Province the exact circumstance and position we are currently in with respect to this project. The project has not been sanctioned. There are issues to be concluded. There are pieces of work to be done, as I understand it, between Inco and some of its other partners; and we have alluded to them. The Aboriginal Nations had discussions in Ottawa and there are no current meetings planned, that I am aware of, between the Premier and Scott Hand, or I would say at this point, between myself and Scott Hand.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. minister, somebody is getting ready for something.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Inco is borrowing money for capital projects and also Inco is in the process of soliciting bids for construction work at Voisey's Bay. We all know, and we have heard it in the past, that the Premier says he wants work to start on that project as early as June of this year. So, I say to the hon. minister, either you have a deal or you are about to sign a deal, or Inco is making one heck of an assumption. My question to the minister is, which is it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the hon. member, there are more ‘ors' in his question than there is in Voisey's Bay, I think, if I was counting correctly; or, or, or. Yes, it is all about ore, Mr. Speaker, I say with great seriousness. It is all about ore.

To the point of whether or not there will be work starting this June, or whether or not we want work to start this June; I can tell the hon. member that I would like to be in the position to announce that work is starting tomorrow morning. In fact, I would like to be here -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I would like to be here reporting on the work that has happened for the last two years, but the fact of the matter is, we do not have a project. It has not started. It is not up and running yet, and therefore there is nothing to report on it.

I can say to the hon. member that we are as interested, on behalf and in the interest of the people of this Province, to see work start in June, if that is possible, or July, or August, or May, whenever we can get it up and running. But, before any of that can take place there has to be successful conclusions to discussions that are still dealing with outstanding issues, and until we resolve those issues there is no project to report.

I think, Mr. Speaker, in fairness -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. MATTHEWS: I think in fairness to the people of the Province, and to the Opposition who have a right and an obligation to ask questions, and we respect it and we appreciate being able to answer, I think that it is only fair to say that we have exposed - we have shared probably more with the people of the Province in a public fashion, with respect to this project, than has been shared by any other government on any other project that they have been announcing. We have identified -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. MATTHEWS: - Mr. Speaker, within a very narrow range, the number of issues that have to be resolved before we get a project and we hope we can get it done so that we can all benefit on behalf of the constituents that we all serve in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, my final question.

Based on what the minister has just said, based on the assumption that the minister is right and that there is no deal, does that mean that the Premier's startup date, June's startup date schedule is simply out the window? Is that what the minister is saying?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, there is no project yet to announce. There is no schedule to throw out the window. There is no schedule to invite in the door. There is a prospect that we will get a project; and at what point we get the project we will be happy to announce, or we will be happy to hear the company announce: when the project can move forward, the basis on which it is going forward, how much work will get done, where and when, how much money will be spent, and what the economic value of all of that will be to the people of the Province.

That is the bottom line. We are working, we are operating, we have a mandate to work on behalf of the people of the Province to bring about development, and we will strive to do that on the account of Voisey's Bay and/or every other opportunity that presents itself to us on behalf of the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker, in the early 1990s, in the Williams Report, one of the recommendations was certainly to give the parents of this Province an equal share in the governance of this education system, through the establishment of school councils. It was Dr. Williams who said, "If the school system is to reach its maximum potential with the resources available, the Commission believes it is essential to establish the means for effective parent involvement in the governance of the Province's schools."

Recent comments, Mr. Speaker, by the minister, in the media, on the role of school councils, have given cause for concern that this promise will not be met. The minister has criticized the school council federation for focusing on provincial issues rather than school-specific issues.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Does she expect school councils to simply ignore issues such as school fees, teacher allocations, curriculum concerns, public exams, and others? Minister, please.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, for the record, at no time have I been critical of school councils. At no time have I suggested that they not be involved in provincial issues. What I have said, Mr. Speaker, is that under the Schools Act, 1997, school councils were legislated into effect. The legislation was very specific, Mr. Speaker, and it clearly suggested that school councils were to be school-specific in terms of the issues they dealt with. Everyone knows, and everyone should be aware, that a lot of the issues that happen in schools are provincial issues, Mr. Speaker, and as individual school councils deal with school-specific issues, obviously they are dealing with provincial issues, and I encourage them to do so. I welcome the involvement of parents in our school systems, as I have always done. What I said, Mr. Speaker, I reiterated what the Schools Act, 1997 spells out as the mandate of school councils in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again I say to the minister that there are parents out there who have listened to what she has said, and what she has said now certainly is not in keeping with what should be done. Parents should be equal partners in education. Their voices have to be valued as much as any other voice. I ask the minister: What has changed? Why is it that she feels that parents should be seen and not heard?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the one thing you learn is that, when you ask a question and you are given an answer, it is expected that you listen to the answer. Clearly, the gentleman opposite has questions prepared and does not intend to listen to any of the answers that are given.

Let me repeat again, Mr. Speaker, that I welcome and encourage parents to be involved in the education of our children. It is an important component of ensuring that we have a successful education system in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the involvement of parents. There has been no Minister of Education who has been more inviting to have parents in the schools system than this Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: So let me reiterate again, Mr. Speaker, parents are involved in our school system. We have a significant number of school councils. I would like to see school councils in all of our schools. Unfortunately that is not the case, Mr. Speaker, but I would encourage parents to come together with the principals and the teachers and community leaders and form school councils at every school in our communities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister: The questions are not the problem; it is the answers that I am getting back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again I say to the minister that the role of the school councils is a very, very important one in our education system today. I ask the minister: How is the role that the minister has in mind for school councils different from the role of the Home and School Associations of the past, of the Parent Teacher Associations of the past? Are the school councils of today expected to simply sell cookies, raise money for an ailing education system?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the member is right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: The questions are not the problem, Mr. Speaker; it is the questioner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: We all know, when we speak to our children, Mr. Speaker, how important it is to listen, and it is really important to listen to learn. I would encourage the members opposite, particularly the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, to try and listen.

Mr. Speaker, let me say again that under the legislation, Schools Act, 1997, it clearly spells out the mandate of our school councils and I can share with the member opposite a booklet, a pamphlet, that has been put together explaining the mandate of the school councils. It very clearly spells out that they are not expected to sell cookies; that they are not expected to go fundraising and having sales within the schools, Mr. Speaker. They are to be involved in advising school boards on things, matters, within the schools, particularly academic things, Mr. Speaker.

So, I encourage our school boards -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude her answer.

MS FOOTE: - to work closely with our school councils, recognizing that they have a very important role to play in our education system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago the company that owned and operated the fish plant in the community of St. Bride's went into receivership. The fish plant and its assets were taken over to be sold. Yesterday was the deadline for proposals and tenders from individuals or companies interested in purchasing the property. My understanding is that several proposals were put forward and a decision on what is to be accepted will be made within the next few days. Proposals were accepted on the building and the equipment as a package, and proposals were accepted on the building and equipment separately. The idea that the equipment could be sold and shipped elsewhere is of great concern to the local people. The larger question of what happens to the processing licence is causing much more concern, Mr. Speaker.

I want to ask the minister today: Due to the fact that the fish plant did not process last year, can he tell me today what is the status of the licence for the St. Bride's plant at the present time? Does it have an active licence and are all the fees paid up to date?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the member opposite for his question.

As to whether or not the fees are paid up to date, I will check that in a few minutes and get back to you on it. Usually, when this happens, Mr. Speaker, the licence stays with the community, with the plant that is in the community. If there is somebody else who wants to come in and operate the facility, I suggest that they put forward a business proposal to the provincial Department of Fisheries and we will have a look at it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, many communities in the areas of Newfoundland and Labrador are concerned about what the fishery holds, especially as it relates to our fishing industry. St. Bride's and the Cape Shore area are no different. There is an understanding that some of the proposals put forward for the St. Bride's fish plant will include the movement of the licence to another area of the Province.

I would like to ask the minister today: What is the policy and process of the government in this situation, what involvement will the people of the community and area have in this process, and what guarantee can he give the residents today that, regardless of who owns the fish plant next week or next month, the licence will still remain with the fish plant in St. Bride's?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and again I thank the member opposite for his question.

We do have a policy pertaining to the transfer of licences here in the Province. Regardless of whether the plant is sold and the equipment is transferred out of the area, that doesn't mean, Mr. Speaker, that the licence goes with the equipment. The licence is attached to the facility. The policy in the provincial Department of Fisheries is that, if somebody comes forward and asks to have that licence transferred, we have an open and public process whereby that request for transfer would be advertised in the local paper so that the residents of the community in question would have the opportunity to have their views made known to government and anyone else in the immediate area or throughout the Province, for that matter, would have a say, would let us know how they feel about the transfer of that licence. At that time, it would be the department that would decide whether or not the licence would be transferred.

So, I tell the hon. member opposite, that the people in the community he referenced just then will have ample opportunity, if and when there is a request for a transfer, to make their position known to government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to ask the minister: Will he give a commitment to me today, and to the people of St. Bride's and the Cape Shore, that the processing licence for the fish plant in St. Bride's will stay in the community of St. Bride's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, we have a process, like I just explained to the hon. member opposite, and to say today that the licence will stay in the community or the licence will be transferred, I just explained the process and we will follow the process; but, speaking generally, right now I have no desire to transfer a licence from your community to someone else's in the Province. We have an abundance of licences in this Province today and it would not be my intention, obviously, to transfer that licence to somewhere else in the Province. But, we do have a process and we will abide by the process, and, at the end of the day, the people in your community will be given the opportunity to make their case known to me and the Department of Fisheries, and we will make the decision openly and publicly.

Thank you.

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 Justice and Attorney General.

A couple of weeks shy of a year ago, we passed legislation in this House to allow for lawsuits against tobacco corporations to recover health care costs. Mr. Speaker, the Select Committee heard the views of the people of the Province last winter and it is pretty obvious that the people of this Province support litigation against tobacco companies and want to proceed. I want to ask the minister why this legislation has yet to be proclaimed, and why do we not yet have a lawsuit commenced, a proceeding against the tobacco companies?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act was indeed passed here about a year ago. Anyone who listened then was aware at that time - as I am sure the hon. member was - and took part in the committee, actually, and made presentations, we have followed this very closely with the Province of British Columbia, who had a similar piece of legislation. In fact, they were the trailblazers in this type of legislation in Canada, and they have had their legislation tested several times for its constitutionality in B.C., going right to their Court of Appeal, redrafted a couple of times. They finally have theirs through. Ours are patterned after them, which took us up to about a year ago and we got ours enacted but not proclaimed.

We were trying to do this with partners, preferably all ten Canadian partners if we could, at least. We have been working towards trying to get that partnership of jurisdictions together because we realize this is a very costly venture, very much needed, and no doubt a priority in terms of getting it on, in terms of getting the legislation there, the groundwork to do this. The more people we have involved, the better it is in terms of cost-sharing.

The thing went off the rails, quite frankly, last year in B.C., because they had a change of government there. When this initiative started in B.C., it was pushed by the NDP government at that time, but when the Liberal government came on we were not even sure if they were going to proceed with it as an initiative.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. PARSONS: That took several months and they have indeed now gotten back on board and confirmed their commitment to this initiative, and we are having our ongoing dialogue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the minister indicated, the NDP government of British Columbia issued a lawsuit on January, 2001, after they enacted new legislation that ours is patterned after. We are well behind that now, Mr. Speaker, a year and three months later.

I want to ask the minister whether or not he is aware that the World Health Organization offered expertise and advice to countries planning to take the tobacco companies to court. Has the minister taken them up on that in terms of expertise, and is this litigation dependent on British Columbia or are we prepared to proceed with this litigation to get up to speed, to have it happen sooner rather than later, Mr. Speaker, because this has been promised for some years now.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, it is a priority or it is an intention of government to pursue this initiative with or without British Columbia. We do, however, feel it is most prudent: the more people we have doing this against the intended defendants in this case, which would be the tobacco companies, the better it is from a research perspective and from a cost perspective.

We are talking about a multi-million dollar lawsuit here. We have limited resources, as a Province. We will use them if we have to, but we would like to be prudent if we could. The more people we have on board here, in way of other provinces, that will make the burden much easier when it comes to our fiscal needs to contribute to this most worthwhile venture.

We are, at the deputy minister level, having at this time discussions with other deputy ministers in Canada, and hopefully they will be coming on board as well. As soon as we can determine who is, in fact, on board, we will be pursuing the initiative.

That ties in as well to the first question. You asked why it was not proclaimed. There is a strategic reason why it has not been proclaimed to date. I am sure the hon. member, being a solicitor, is aware that there are sometimes strategic reasons why, from a legal perspective, you might not proclaim a certain piece of legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr, Speaker.

My questions is to the Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

Minister, the Bonavista Peninsula has suffered severe economic devastation since the closure of the Northern cod fishery in 1992. For the past ten years, residents have been leaving this area. Businesses are closing and proud, hardworking Newfoundlanders have had to access social assistance.

Minister, your department was created by your government to promote rural development, and with that should come rural employment. Minister, surely by now your government must have some plan for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I ask the minister what his government is proposing to do to help the economic situation on the Bonavista Peninsula.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that this Administration does have a plan. We had been pursuing a plan. Contrary to my friends on the other side, who talk about openness and transparency out of one side of their mouth but have very little to tell on the other side of their mouth in terms of what their policies might be, we do have a plan.

The hon. Member for Bonavista South knows quite well that, since 1996, there has been $11.5 million put in his District of Bonavista South alone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: The hon. Member for Bonavista South also knows that, unlike days of old when things were dictated from the top down, this Administration's economic recovery works on from being from the bottom up, the grassroots up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South knows full well that we have twenty zonal boards in this Province, one of which covers his district. We leave it to the stakeholders who have the most to gain and the most to lose and the best ideas, which are the people in these zone boards, in these areas made up of development associations, Chambers of Commerce, Economic Development Officers, municipal leaders. They decide what their priorities are. We follow their direction and their advice and help them where and when we can, which, I would add, we are doing quite successfully since 1996.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that there is nobody in this House who knows their district or visits their district any more than this member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I have yet to see the prosperity that this minister is putting forward, I can assure you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, let me give you an example. The community of Sweet Bay has a population of 160 residents. Prior to 1992, 90 per cent of this community had a job. Today, I say to you, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question.

MR. FITZGERALD: - five people in that community are fortunate enough to be able to get up in the morning and go to work.

Minister, this is certainly not acceptable. Would you inform the residents in communities such as Sweet Bay, when your government's economic policies will allow them once again to realize a job?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: I would remind the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, perhaps he should talk to the Coaker Foundation in his region. Perhaps he should talk to the people who operate the shrimp plant in his region. Perhaps he should talk to the people who opened the seal tannery in his region. Perhaps he should talk to the Town of Bonavista, which has benefitted tremendously from infrastructure and tourism initiatives in his district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: I stood here in this House about two weeks ago and the Opposition House Leader asked a question about statistics, and where we are doing stuff and not doing stuff. I gave statistics at that time. We did not fabricate these or dream them up off the top of our head. I will repeat them today for the benefit of the Member for Bonavista South: 24,300 jobs have been created in this Province since 1996.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: We know everything is not rosy and we are not satisfied with those numbers. We will not be satisfied until there is zero unemployment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: We did not create those statistics. Statistics Canada created those. They are not a figment of ours or your imagination.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise to present another petition, Mr. Speaker, and I will continue to presents the petitions as long as the people in my district believe that they can have their say on the floor of the House of Assembly by presenting petitions. I am certainly proud to present this one; another different twist, I guess, to the road situation in the Province.

This is from the community of Nipper's Harbour, which has a long tradition of fishing and is a productive community, as far as many people employed in the fishery. The funny thing about this petition today, Mr. Speaker, is that they do not - they have gravel roads, seventeen kilometers through their community, but they have given up on asking for pavement. They are just asking that the road be upgraded because they were told just two day ago, and I tell the minister today, by the depot on the peninsula - when they asked for a grader to go over it because there were so many potholes - it was described as a washboard, the road was - that the depot informed them that there was no good to send over a grader anymore because there was nothing left to grade. They cannot even send over a grader and have a decent gravel road anymore, Mr. Speaker. The depot informed the people on the peninsula, in this particular community, that it was useless even to send over a grader anymore because they were down to the bedrock. There was nothing left to grade.

That is how desperate the situations have come with roads in this Province, Mr. Speaker. I spoke with the town clerk just a couple of days ago who informed me that the road has deteriorated even more so again this spring; I guess with the long winter and so on. Now that they have asked for a grader to come over, they cannot even get that request fulfilled.

So, Mr. Speaker, they have given up in asking for pavement. They have certainly given up on asking for sidewalks. They are just saying now: Could you please give us a bit of grade A material to put on the road so that we can get back and forth there? A lot of heavy trucks go back and forth because, as I said before, it is a productive community. Many people work in the community, therefore they contribute to the economy of the Province. It is not a big metropolis, Mr. Speaker. It is a small community of a few hundred people but they feel they deserve at least a graded gravel road.

Now that is what they have come to in this Province, Mr. Speaker. They have come to the realization that they will not get seventeen kilometres of pavement this year. They do not expect it to be announced this year. Besides that, Mr. Speaker, the people in this community have to drive over the La Scie highway, which is another disgrace and probably the most deplorable paved road in this Province, and the Premier went down over that road himself; I hope he did. He was down in La Scie just a week ago. I hope he drove down and did not take a helicopter. I believe he drove down, and I hope he did, because he will see firsthand, Mr. Speaker, the deplorable conditions. The people in Nippers Harbour not only have to beat down over the La Scie road but then they have to turn onto seventeen kilometres of gravel road that cannot even be graded. That is how bad it has gotten.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about desperate needs in this Province and so on, this is a situation that is happening around this Province. I understand from my colleagues who have presented petitions in this House in the last number of days, that this is all over the Province. It is getting worse and worse. So, what is really happening now, Mr. Speaker, is people in Nippers Harbour, who have conditions like this, are now being piled on top of a long list in this Province who have either old pavement or they have gravel roads.

Like Harry's Harbour, it is the same thing as in my district. Some fifteen kilometres of gravel road before they get to school for their children, for example. School buses have to travel over seventeen kilometres of gravel road to bring kids to school.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is a deterrent. It is certainly unsafe. It is a deterrent for tourism, people who want to go to some of these beautiful communities. Nippers Harbour, of course, being one of those. That is where tourists like to go when they come to see Newfoundland and Labrador. Also, like I said, for the economy, for the fish trucks that have to go down there to collect the fish to bring to other plants around the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking the minister to give this some serious consideration, not for the pavement so much this year but hopefully it will be done, but at least some grade A material so they have a decent road to travel over.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would also like to thank my hon. colleagues here in the House.

The Resource Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have approved, without amendment, the Estimates and Expenditures of the following departments: Fisheries and Aquaculture; Forest Resources and Agrifoods; Mines and Energy; Tourism, Culture and Recreation; Industry, Trade and Rural Development; and Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, because it is by leave I would just like to thank all members of the Committee, in particular: the vice-chair, Trevor Taylor; Mary Hodder, MHA; Ray Hunter, MHA; Roland Butler, MHA; Tom Osborne; George Sweeney; all MHAs, and I would like to thank the staff of the House of Assembly as well for their due diligence in allowing us to complete our work on time.

I present this report on behalf of the Committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, report received and adopted.

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

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, by leave as well, under Reports.

I had committed to the hon. Member for Trinity North to table in this House the budgets for the institutional boards, the Health and Community Services, Newfoundland and Labrador Cancer Treatment Research Foundation and the St. John's Nursing Home Board. I would like to do that at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is that it for the reports?

The hon. the Member for Labrador West, on a petition.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Labrador West. The petition reads as follows:

WHEREAS the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund was set up with $347.6 million from the federal government for transportation in Labrador; and

WHEREAS the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund Act requires that money in the fund be used for the maintenance of marine and ferry services to Labrador, construction of the Trans-Labrador Highway, and other initiatives related to transportation in Labrador; and

WHEREAS the Liberal government announced in the 2002 Budget that $97 million would be taken out of the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund, and added to the general revenues of the Province to be used for purposes outside the Act.

We the undersigned petitioners hereby petition the House of Assembly to direct the government to immediately put this money back into the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund to be spent on transportation initiatives in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the previous petition that was presented by the Member for Baie Verte talked about the need for road work all over the Province. That is true. We have heard in this House on many occasions, members talking about work that needs to be done in their districts.

In my district, we have 600 kilometres. The Trans-Labrador Highway is 600 kilometres long. All of it is gravel road and much of it is in a complete state of disrepair. The section of the highway that runs from the Ashuanipi River to Esker turnoff, in particular, is hardly a section of road that you would consider fit to travel over, particularly at this point in time.

Mr. Speaker, the government stated that they will be doing upgrading to that section of road. The Minister of Transportation announced in the budget that they will be spending $800,000 on that section of road this summer. Well, to my knowledge, this summer the road work on that section is only going to cover about twenty-five kilometres of a section that is over 100 kilometres long. We are very concerned about this because there are many people in Labrador who depend upon that highway to make a living. There are people in other parts of Labrador who depend upon these truckers to get their goods to their business. People in Labrador who travel, need that road in a good condition so that it is safe for public transport. Not to mention, Mr. Speaker, the negative impact that a bad road such as this one has upon the tourism industry.

I stated earlier in this House about tourists that I met last summer who had trailer-hitches broken off their vehicles while travelling through Labrador on that section of highway. They told me at the time that they really, really enjoyed their trip to Labrador. They enjoyed the people that they met. They enjoyed the things that they did but they would never, ever recommend to any of their friends that they come to Labrador with their trailers and with their vehicles as long as the highways are in the state of disrepair that they are at the present time.

So, Mr. Speaker, this $97 million that was taken out of the Fund, people of Labrador believe that it should remain in the Fund. It should be used on transportation initiatives in Labrador and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, just to clue up.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

People believe that that money could be used as a closer relationship to the road repair rather than to be put into general revenues.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I continue to get petitions from the people of the Clarenville area with respect to long-term care services. I just want to read into the record the prayer from this particular petition:

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador announced in its 2001-2002 Budget there would be a long-term care facility constructed in Clarenville and that the Department of Health and Community Services was given $500,000 to commence the engineering and design work for the said facility; and

WHEREAS in August, 2001, the then Acting Minister of Health and Community Services and now the current Minister of Health and Community Services, further confirmed, in a letter to the town of Clarenville, that government had made a commitment to build a forty-four bed facility in Clarenville and it was expected that design consultants would be appointed in September, 2001.

The petitioners are asking this government to proceed as promised and proceed immediately to appoint the consultants and the design people to start the work on the design and engineering work for the forty-four long-term care beds for Clarenville.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said in this House many times before, this has been a long-standing issue for the people of the general Clarenville area and many of the names - I say Clarenville area because many of the names on this petition come from a variety of communities. Some of them are included in the District of Terra Nova. Some of them are included in the District of Bellevue. In fact, some of them from my colleagues District of Bonavista South. That entire area now find themselves in a situation where there are no long-term care services.

People of that area have been asking for quite some time - in fact, the first discussions about long-term care services in that area started in the mid-1980s. I recall myself, Mr. Speaker, being part of a delegation in 1989, I believe it was, to come in here and meet with the then Minister of Health and his senior officials to talk about long-term care service at that point. I had the privilege of being a part of an organization that, for about six or seven years, continued to lobby this government for long-term care services in that particular area of the Province.

So, this is not a new issue. This has not come about as a result of some changing demographics in the last couple of years. This has been a long-standing issue for quite some time. There have been a number of studies done that have confirmed the need, and we have the commitment. This is the irony of this, we have the commitment, the money is in the Budget, and in fact it was in last year's Budget. In this year's Budget it was announced again, the same money. It got announced for the second time. So, it is not a question of identifying a need, it is not a question of identifying the funding for it; it is an issue of taking action, following through with the commitment made, following through with the promise.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Just to conclude, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I would ask government, and I would urge government, to live up to its commitment, to honour the commitment it made in the Budget last year, the Budget this year, and the letter the minister wrote in August, to honour those commitments. I ask this government now to quickly live up to that commitment and appoint the engineering and design people to start the design work so that construction can start as quickly as possible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I would like to present a petition on behalf of the people of Black Duck Cove.

To the Honourable House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in Legislative Session convened:

The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

WHEREAS the Black Duck Cove fish plant is the community's only industry and its closure has resulted in high unemployment in the area; and

WHEREAS shrimp being caught adjacent to the Northern Peninsula is being trucked twelve to fourteen hours away to be processed, resulting in higher overhead costs for a poorer quality product; and

WHEREAS the Review of the Cooked and Peeled Shrimp Industry, the Report of the Inshore Shrimp Panel, recommends that the licensing policy should encourage processing closer to the resource, and that the transfer of plants licences closer to the resource should be promoted;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately act upon these recommendations to ensure that this once promising industry becomes, once again, a viable industry.

And as in duty bound your petitioners every pray.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Black Duck Cove have been saying, ever since this industry got on the go, that there must be something wrong with how this industry came to develop itself, that it would be ideally located at Black Duck Cove with all the experience it has in the fishery, and that they should have an opportunity to get involved in this industry.

They, of course, started off with a shrimp licence the same as everybody else, but they never got an opportunity to fully participate in this industry. They feel that something had to be wrong, and they were recommending that it made sense for the processing to be close to the resource, as on the Northern Peninsula where a vast majority of this resource is being landed. They felt that they should have an opportunity.

This industry has gone off its rails, actually. The panel was recommended and, of course, they came to the conclusion that the processing was too far from there. Not only did Black Duck Cove not get an opportunity to get into this industry, but places like Port au Choix which actually started off in the industry back in 1969 - actually, they were the only place in this Province that was processing shrimp. Yet, last year employment was so low in this area that they ended up having to go to the government to get make-work in order to qualify. That is how little they have come down. An industry that went, you know, from 12 million pounds back in 1996 to now having 120, you would obviously think that this plant and this area would have benefitted from this resource coming ashore; yet they didn't. Everywhere else came to benefit from this resource except along the Northern Peninsula where it was the beginning of this industry, and it seems very unfortunate that this industry had to take this route to go and be forced in different areas.

I think this industry has gone off to the point where -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. YOUNG: As rumour has it, this industry may close down in June of this year and it is because this industry has been so poorly designed and has gone political verses practical. I think this Province needs every bit of practical decision-making possible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I once again put forward a petition. The prayer of the petition reads as follows:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in parliament assembled:

The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:

We, the undersigned citizens of the Cape Shore area, hereby draw your attention to the unsatisfactory and unsafe conditions as they now exist on Route 100-Cape Shore;

WHEREAS it is the duty of government through the enactment and enforcement of the Highways Safety Act to protect its citizens not only from commuters but also from unsafe highways; and

WHEREAS the safety of the travelling public must be the number one priority of any government;

THEREFORE your petitioners ask that government provide the necessary funding to carry out the much-needed repairs to Route 100.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, numerous petitions have been sent to me from the people of the Cape Shore area, most commonly in the communities of Branch, Point Lance, St. Bride's, Cuslett, Angel's Cove, Patrick's Cove, Ship Cove and The Barasway. These petitions have been put forward to me because of the deplorable road conditions that now exist on Route 100 and on Route 100-16, which is commonly known as the Point Lance access road.

Mr. Speaker, the first pavement most of these roads saw was in 1979. Especially the road from the top of Cuslett lookout up into the community of Branch and down into Point Lance seems to be the most deplorable road in that area. We had some recapping carried out last year in Branch country and in some places on the Cape Shore. It was certainly much needed. There are several others places in my district that need road work: the community of Ship Harbour, Fox Harbour access road, the road through the Town of Placentia, out the Cape Shore, as this petition touches on, in through St. Mary's Bay, just outside the community of North Harbour there is much need for repairs to be carried out, down through St. Mary's Bay, through the Town of Mount Carmel, right down from St. Catherine's on down to Peter's River.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the confines of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, and the fact that somewhere around $25 million has been put aside this year to look at the Provincial Roads Program. I understand there is a need somewhere in excess of $300 million, that the minister has on his desk at the present time, and not everybody is going to get what they are looking for.

These people in this area put forward this petition because especially the road from the community of St. Bride's over to Branch is absolutely deplorable. It is in an unsafe condition. I heard a lady on the Open Line show the other night talking about busting up a tire on the way to St. Bride's and on the way back also, Mr. Speaker. I drive over that road several times during the week and it is certainly something that needs to be done and needs to be addressed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to clue up?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MANNING: I hope that the minister, in his wisdom, Mr. Speaker - as I said, I understand the confines of the amount of money he has been allotted this year, but this work is something that needs to done. It needs to be addressed for the safety of the public, Mr. Speaker. There are buses that travel over this road every day, from the communities of Point Lance and Branch over to Fatima Academy in St. Bride's. There are emergency vehicles, the ambulance, travelling back and forth, and it is a very unsafe condition. Hopefully, by presenting these petitions here in the House on behalf of the people who have sent them in to me, Mr. Speaker, the minister will take into consideration the concerns of the people in that area and will hopefully come up with some dollars to look at making improvements.

Mr. Speaker, we are not looking for roads paved with gold. What we are looking for is just some recapping done to make the road conditions safe. Hopefully by raising these petitions in the House, reminding the minister of the unsafe conditions that are out there on Route 100 and Route 100-16, Mr. Speaker, that the minister will take into consideration the petitions and will do whatever is necessary and whatever is in his power to address some of these concerns that the people have raised.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today we are doing Bill 6. I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 6.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

Just to remind the House that we are on Bill 6, and we are still on the resolution to Bill 6.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just rise today briefly to review. I think it is important to let the people of the Province know particularly that today we are talking about an amendment to the Income Tax Act, which again is addressing the issue around dividends, reducing the dividends from 9 per cent to 5 per cent, which will allow the Province to achieve $3 million. What it does is, it treats corporations, small business owners and individuals who have dividends in the same way as if they would draw a salary as opposed to drawing down dividends. Previously it has been a benefit. It will come into effect as of March 21, 2002. Any dividends declared prior to March 21, 2002, will be eligible for the 9 per cent dividend tax credit.

I also think it is important to note that the majority of these, about 75 per cent of the tax filers with income under 30 per cent, will only affect really about 10 per cent of all of the dividend holders. Again, I would say this was a decision that government made - a decision, really, that would focus on people who would be minimally affected. People who are lower wage earners will have a much less impact than those who are high income earners; for example, over $50,000 and even into the thousand and millions, obviously. People who are in that category will perhaps pay more tax because they will no longer have a 9 per cent reduction but rather will be decreased to 5 per cent.

Again I would say, Mr. Chair, this is a technical amendment to the income tax but it is not technical inasmuch as it allows the government revenues of $3 million which we will use for our priorities, as have been clearly been set out as health care and education for the people of the Province. It is part of our Striking the Right Balance and moving forward to provide those services for the people of our Province.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, the last day I was debating this particular resolution, I made note of the fact that the children of this Province have not shared equally in the revenues and in the decision-making processes that have been announced by the minister.

When we were dealing with the Speech from the Throne some weeks ago, and I read through it very carefully, I was expecting some comment there and some measures to address the issue of child poverty, but I didn't find one single word - not a single word in the Speech from the Throne - about child poverty. Children do not seem to matter. Hungry children do not seem to matter at all.

Mr. Chair, we have known for many, many years - studies have been done back into the 1970s and into the 1980s and into the 1990s, that tell us - that the issues of child poverty in this Province need to be addressed. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chair, the minister just said that the measures that she is announcing today and seeking commission from this House to implement, will bring an extra $3 million to this Province. Then she said that this will let her and her government make some decisions relative to spending priorities. Nowhere in her comments was there one single commitment that they would do anything to address the issues of child poverty. So, when we talk of all of the economic changes that have occurred, and when the minister talks about gross domestic product, and when we talk about all of the issues that indicate that the Newfoundland economy is growing, and while we are very happy with that, we have to bring to the attention of the government, that poor children, poor children of this Province, are not sharing equally in the growth of this economy.

Mr. Chair, since 1989, child poverty in this Province has gone up consistently. As a matter of fact, in 1989 the rate was the lowest it has been in the last twenty years. It stood at 19.8 per cent. In no year since then has the rate been as low as that. As a matter of fact, in the last year, the child poverty rate in this Province stood at 25.7 per cent. Mr. Chair, that is a shame. As a matter of fact, in those same years, in the last twenty years, other provinces have done much better. For example, in 1981, Prince Edward Island had a child poverty rate of 22.7 per cent.

MR. SULLIVAN: Where are they now?

MR. H. HODDER: Now they stand at 12.5 per cent. Prince Edward Island has done much better in addressing the issues of child poverty. When this minister, a few moments ago, said in this House: We are able to establish priorities. We are able to spend money on the choices that they make... Obviously, the choice of this government is not to address the issues of child poverty. In those same years for which I quoted the stats for Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland's child poverty rate went from 21.6 per cent up to 25.3 per cent, and in the last year it jumped to 25.7 per cent.

Mr. Chair, I want to note as well that for single-parent families the rate is even higher. In fact, the child poverty rate for single-parent families in this Province is in excess of 50 per cent. Therefore, when you compare two-parent families and you compare single-parent families, the child poverty rate in this Province is indeed a tremendous shame on all of the decision-makers in this government. Obviously, children and child poverty do not merit much attention.

As I said when I started, in the Speech from the Throne this year, we could not find one single sentence, not one comment, not a single sentence, that talked about the issues of child poverty. Oh, there are some glowing comments there, but did child poverty make the list? Absolutely not. Not a word, not a paragraph, not one single iota of evidence that all of the petitions that we put forward here on behalf of children have had any impact whatsoever on this government and its decision-making processes.

Mr. Chair, I want to draw attention to the connection between child poverty and educational achievement. To do that, I want to refer to a report of the review of special education by Dr. Patricia Canning. It is entitled Special Matters. I want to refer to Chapter 3 in Dr. Canning's report. It is entitled: Poverty, Illiteracy, and Educational Achievement in Newfoundland and Labrador. As a matter of fact, the entire text of Chapter 3 deals with child poverty.

Likewise, I should point out that there were something like ten or twelve recommendations in the Williams Royal Commission that dealt with child poverty. As a matter of fact, Dr. Canning references these recommendations and notes that, up to the time of her report, this government, this Liberal government, has done nothing to address child poverty in this Province, nothing effective in any case, because the stats would have changed if there had been effective programs. Dr. Canning reports that the implementation strategies recommended by the Williams Royal Commission were still inactive by the government.

On the issue of child poverty, I want to read into the record a few comments by Dr. Canning. She says, on page 38, "While it is acknowledged that not all children from low-income homes do poorly in school...". I want to reinforce that because we are not saying that all children from low-income families do poorly in school. Not at all. We are just looking at the averages. She reads, "While it is acknowledged that not children from low-income homes do poorly in school, that the reasons for underachievement are complex, and that underachievement in any individual student is the result of an interacting constellation of variables, significant contributors to this problem are almost certainly the high rates of family poverty and illiteracy and our failure to consider the implications of this for educational policy and practice."

Dr. Canning is saying that there is a definite relationship between child poverty and school achievement. While individual families make their own priorities, and while we commend those families with low incomes, who make tremendous sacrifices to make sure that their children get the best opportunities, on average, children from poor families do not do as well in school.

She continues on to write, "While the relationship between poverty, illiteracy and achievement has been recognized in a number of previous reports including the 1992 Royal commission on Education, there has been no overall plan to address these problems in a comprehensive manner."

I will repeat that, because it confirms with what I have been saying. She says, "...there has been no overall plan to address these problems in a comprehensive manner." In others words, this government has failed the most vulnerable people in our society. They have failed the poorest of children. There is no plan to address, in a comprehensive manner, child poverty.

Mr. Chair, I could go on to talk about the effects of poverty on schooling. I could deal with it in some detail. The Canning Royal Commission -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: Could I have leave for a moment?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I acknowledge the consent of the Government House Leader for me to continue.

Mr. Chair, Dr. Canning notes that recommendations number 147, 148,161,174,175,176,177,178 and up until 185 of the Williams Royal Commission all deal with strategies to address child poverty. She says, years later: this government has no comprehensive plan to address the issue. The stats that have been repeated by me, many times in this House, show the effects of that.

Mr. Chair, I acknowledge that there is a lot that we could talk about here, a lot more that I could say about the effects of poverty on children and youth but let it be known that poor children are not being served well by this government. If they were, then we would have had commentary on that matter in the Throne Speech many weeks ago. Poor children and poor families are not a concern, if they were we would see strategies. If they had been a concern, the Williams Royal Commission would have been acted upon and the twelve or thirteen recommendations from the Williams Royal Commission would have been more than just words on paper. They would have brought forward an action plan, but they did not. Some years later the Canning report on Special Education, called Special Matters, further indicts this government.

I ask this government: How long will our hungry children have to suffer? How long will they be disadvantaged? When the minister talked earlier about setting priorities, I had to ask a very straightforward question: When will hungry children and poor low income families be placed on the agenda of this government so that their children can have an equal opportunity for success, an equal opportunity to stay in school, an equal opportunity to engage in extra circular activities so that when schools go on field trips they can go too? When will we find that there is a comprehensive strategy, the type that Dr. Canning talked about? When will that strategy be available and be implemented by this government so that we will not have an indictment - as I just referred to, the indictment that is offered by the report I referred to earlier, where I gathered my stats - on the child welfare profile put out by the National Council of Welfare report.

This is indeed a telling document. It is a terrible indictment on this government's priorities and shows clearly that children have no voice in this government and that it particularly applies to children of low income families who are disadvantaged very often from birth. This government's actions means that they are disadvantaged at birth, continues through all of their childhood years and because they cannot avail of the equal opportunities in school, very often the cycle continues.

Mr. Chair, I say to you on behalf of all of the children in this Province, the 25 per cent, the 30,000 children in school this day who did not have a lunch - 30,000 children went to school today, in this Province, who did not have a lunch because their parents could not afford to give them a lunch. Now there may have been some cases where that was a deliberate choice. However, often it is not a choice.

I say to all members on the government side, it is time that we reviewed our priorities. We read Dr. Williams report all over again. We reviewed what Dr. Canning is saying. While we commend the initiatives through School Lunch Programs and other initiatives, many children in this Province are not part of the decision-making that the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board commented on just a few minutes ago.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr, Chair.

I would like to say a few words in support of this bill. As the hon. minister mentioned previously, this is essentially a fairness measure. We currently have a situation in this Province where a small business owner can structure their affairs so they pay less tax than an employee who earns the same amount of money. This is essentially an inequitable situation from the point of view of wage earners and also since the Province's tax base can be eroded due to the simple reclassification of an accounting effort. It is a loophole. It is a loophole that has existed for many years and one which we have not had the ability to close until very recently. So for this reason, I support the amendment to the Income Tax Act.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I stand today to say a few words on Bill 6, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. An act that will put $3 million back into the coffers of the general revenue of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This being a money bill - and a money bill allows each Member of this House of Assembly to speak on a very wide range of topics.

I am going to go back and talk a little while about an issue that I raised in Question Period. I raised the point of talking about the unemployment problems and the lack of economic activity in my District of Bonavista South. The Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Renewal was quick to get to his feet and almost kind of tried to chastise me and say: How dare you ask such questions when $11.5 million was spent in your district since 1996. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, and to you, Mr. Minister, whoop-de-do! Two million dollars a year in one of the biggest districts in Newfoundland and Labrador. What I would like to ask the minister: How many permanent full-time jobs have been created since 1996 out of that $11 million? That is the question I would like to ask. When he referred to the shrimp plant in Port Union, what he did not say and what he did not tell the people, is that there are 120 people working in that particular shrimp plant today for fifteen to twenty weeks work a year. Prior to 1992, there were 1,200 people working there for fifty-two weeks of the year. That is what he did not say.

Mr. Chairman, yes we have had some success. I suppose one of the positive places has been the Atlantic Marine Products Inc. plant in Catalina. That has certainly been a positive note but that did not come out of the $11.6 million that the government was talking about. I think the federal government may have taken part in a training program where now that particular company has been able to access some employees by providing some employment services and training services.

Mr. Chairman, I can assure the minister that the tip of the Bonavista Peninsula is probably one of the most devastated economic regions in this Province today. When you look at the plant in Charleston, where in excess of 300 people worked at one time, today nobody goes to work there. When I say plants, I am talking about fish plants. When you look at the plant in Bonavista, the crab processing plant, where in excess of 600 people worked at one time. You go there today, Mr. Chairman, and I would think this year that we will be awfully lucky if 150 to 180 people qualify for even only the basic amounts of being able to collect EI. So, while the minister might stand and say there was $11 million spent in that district since 1996, I can assure you, there is a great need for a heck of a lot more money and there is a great need to provide some economic stimulus in that area of our Province.

One of the things that the Minister of Finance - and I have to refer to this as well, Mr. Chairman, in my deliberations here. The Minister of Finance stood the other day and talked about the forty-seven requests that came from the Opposition members by requesting more money, by saying that the government was overzealous in their spending on the one hand and how we had brought forward forty-seven requests on the other hand, looking for this government to reach into the coffers and put out more money.

Two of the items that they had listed there were from myself, number forty-six and number forty-two, and it reads like this: May 2, 2002, MHA for Bonavista South, Roger Fitzgerald. Opposition Tourism, Culture and Recreation critic, Roger Fitzgerald, has called on the provincial government to provide the support needed to ensure the Random Passage movie site at White Point in Trinity Bay continues to be available and accessible to tourists. Does that sound like a member? Does that sound like people on this side asking for more money? Does that sound like we are asking the government to pump in a million dollars to allow this site to be open to the public? I say not. In fact, in my questions to the minister and in my questions to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation in our Estimates Committee meetings, it was clearly stated that it would not cost government one plug nickel, nobody was looking for a penney. All they were looking for and all they were asking for, Mr. Chairman, was the right to be able to use that particular site. All they were looking for was for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation or the Minister of Government Services and Lands to issue them a permit to allow them to access this particular facility. So, that is one question that I asked that wasn't going to cost government a penny. In fact, I say to the minister and I say to you, Mr. Chairman, it would create money. It would create money. They were not looking for a penny.

Number forty-two, just to show you how inconsistent and what this paper means, that the minister was flashing around and talking about all the requests that were coming forward, was exactly the same topic. I asked the minister if she would commit today to do the right thing: to provide the support needed to allow the popular movie location to benefit rural Newfoundland and Labrador and not be destroyed, as is now the alternative. That was a question asked by me again on April 29, Mr. Chairman. Here again, not one cent of money was needed. All we were asking for, and all the Random Passage Trust was asking for, was the right to be able to access that piece of property, to open it up for tourists, to charge an admission fee, and to create some employment in a rural area of the Province that has been devastated with the economic downturn in the fishery. I just wanted t make those two points.

The other point that I have to make, this being a money bill and talking about income tax, is the unfairness of the Department of Human Resources and Employment to reach out to the lowest income earners in this Province, the people who need help the most, the people in this Province who we should be reaching out to help and to support, are the actions of the Department of Human Resources and Employment to reach out and claw back income tax returns from those people who are receiving social services; those people who are unfortunate enough, by no choice of their own, to be on social assistance.

Mr. Chairman, a few year ago, everything that somebody on social assistance received as a rebate under income tax was clawed back by this government. Because there were enough people on this side of the House and enough people outside this House complaining to government and saying how unfair it was, this government, in their wisdom, decided that they would take a look at what they were doing. In their wisdom, they came back said: Okay, Mr. and Mrs. Newfoundlander and Labradorian, who are unfortunate enough to be on social assistance, what we are going to allow you to do is, we are going to allow you to keep $500 of your income tax return and, whatever you get back from your income tax return over and above that, we are going to take from you, and if you do not come into the office and pay it back, then we will take it off your next cheque. That is what this government has been doing.

Only the other day, I had a call from a gentleman who was unfortunate enough to find himself on social assistance. He called me and said: Guess what? I will not be having a paycheck for the next month, for the next two pay periods. I said: What happened? He said: Because I got some money back from an income tax rebate and now the Department of Human Resources and Employment is taking the money back from me. Guess what I did with the money that I got back? I went out and I paid this bill and that bill and another bill, and I took the bills marked paid over to the office of Human Resources and Employment and said, here is what I did with my money, now why should I be punished?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Not allowed, not so. You will be punished because you were responsible enough to go and pay your bills. Now, this is money, I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that somebody made while they were working. This is money that was paid in to the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador while somebody was gainfully employed. This has nothing to do with the Department of Human Resources and Employment whatsoever. It was money made while those people, who were unfortunate enough to be on social assistance, were working outside the rules and regulations of the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Human Resources and Employment.

I say to you -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: I just want to finish this point, if I may. There are many other points, but I will just finish this one.

CHAIR: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, here is an example where this government, if they were interested, if they cared, could reach out and help those who are less fortunate in this Province. Here is an example where government could say: If you are unfortunate enough to be on social assistance, if you have been fortunate enough to have had a job and have contributed and paid in income tax - if that income tax money was to be returned to that individual, why shouldn't they be allowed to keep it, especially if they were responsible enough to bring back and show proof that it was spent in supporting their family and maintaining their household within the community.

I say to members opposite, since we have allowed those people, those low wage earners or those people unfortunate enough not to have a wage, to move from nothing to $500, I guess I will end off and conclude by putting in a plea, to say to people opposite, that when somebody is working, and if they are fortunate enough to get a rebate on their income tax, then, for God's sake, let them have it. It is theirs, it is not yours, it was money made when people were not on social services. That is the plea that I will put forward and that is the way I will end this five-minute commentary on this bill today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate an opportunity to respond to the comments of the hon. Member for Bonavista South. It is certainly not for me to chastise him or chastise anyone in this House. That is not my purpose here and it is not my role. I think it is incumbent upon all of us, as members, regardless of what side of the House we sit on, that we know the truth, that we know the facts and we speak all the facts.

For example, everyone in this Province understands that since 1992 and the moratorium we have had a terrible time, particularly in rural Newfoundland - no argument about that from anyone - but you cannot sit and just simply be a critic for all time and be bankrupt of any ideas. You are constantly doom, gloom, critical of what someone else is doing, and give very little credit to - this is not only a government initiative, this Economic Recovery Plan. The members of the Opposition have to realize that this is not driven from the top down. This plan that came about here, where we have twenty zone boards, this was designed because the people of this Province feel that it is the best way to deal with their needs and to get to the recovery that we need. It is the people who live in these communities, it is the municipal councillors, the municipal leaders, the members of Chambers of Commerce, the members of Business Development Associations, who know the needs on the ground. It is not for us to tell them what is best for them. They, through their zone boards, fashion their plans together and come to government looking for assistance. Sometimes the assistance may be by way of advice. Sometimes the need may be for some funding to do a marketing plan, to introduce them to some export markets and so on. That is the role of this government. There has been a plan. The people of this Province see through the hypocrisy of what we hear here sometimes in Question Period, and the comments from the Opposition; and I use that word seriously, hypocrisy, because you cannot always be a critic or say one thing when the truth speaks of something else actually happening on the ground.

We hear a lot about openness. We hear a lot about transparency, and accusations that this Administration is not open and is not transparent. By the same token, if you flip that around and say to the members of the Opposition: Where is your openness and your transparency when it comes to telling the people of this Province what you stand for? There has been nothing deceptive or nothing hidden over here. The Jobs and Growth Renewal Strategy is a public document, publicly accessible. Everybody in this Province had their input into it.

When you criticize, you are not only criticizing the Administration; you are criticizing the over 200 development associations in this Province who played a role in creating the plan and who every day work in delivering the plan. This is not driven from the top down. Nobody is claiming over here, either, that the plan is perfect. No one is claiming that we have achieved it. We would be foolish and foolhardy to do such a thing.

We all know, in Newfoundland - anyone who has read any kind of media or watched any market reports, any economic studies - the Northeast Avalon region of this Province is doing quite well, thank you, and nobody minds if they do even better. That does not take away from the fact that we are not where we want to go when it comes to rural Newfoundland. Nobody is prepared to accept the status quo when it comes to the economic plight of rural Newfoundland. We certainly are not prepared to accept it, but we do know we have a plan. The plan entails, first and foremost, working with the people; not telling the people what we think is good for them all the time, but assisting the people in what they think is best for themselves.

It is not only the provincial government which is the be-all and end-all for economic development. We had to work closely with our federal partners, because many times the funding that comes about does not come from provincial coffers. Again, the people of this Province are not fools. They have a lot of common sense and they know quite well the realistic limitations within which we live. We are basically their representatives. They know we can only spend what we bring in, and from time to time you may run a deficit to do the things that are absolutely necessary, such as health care and so on, and certainly municipal pieces of infrastructure.

People do not go against you or dislike you because you are trying your best. People understand that. You do not always succeed at the rate you want. You do not always get there as fast as you want to and need to, but people will give you the benefit of the doubt if they know that you are trying to do the best that you can do. They do not want people who are always critical, and they do not want people who are always negative, who only always see the dark side in things and who are never there to point out anything that is positive and good. Personally, I think these 200 development associations in this Province are doing an amicable job, an admirable job in putting their voluntary time and efforts and ideas into trying to make their communities the best that they can be in this Province.

Anyone who looks at the - I guess it is like one of the popular commentaries said on one of the Open Line shows recently when they were referring to the Leader of the Opposition. She called him a political lightweight, a policy lightweight, and I guess that is what we are seeing here. I am just trying to make a point, not in a political context but in a very serious tone, that we have to deliver to the people of this Province a plan. We have a plan and we are prepared to see it through but you just cannot have critics from the other side - sometimes you have to own up, if you see something good and proper happening you have to acknowledge it, support it and encourage it.

We have, for example, in the last two weeks here in the Province, seen a number of published reports about certain economic indicators concerning the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. They are very promising. They indicate that we are going to have both the RBC report and, as of yesterday, the Bank of Montreal report. As a Province we are going to be doing quite well in terms of the economic indicators, but that is not good enough for someone outside to tell us what they think we are going to do, to prophesy about where they think we are going to fit in the Canadian economic spectrum for the next year. We have to take those positive economic indicators, turn it around and focus on where we need to get those benefits to in rural Newfoundland. That is what this plan is all about. That is what the various programs are all about when it comes to the Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

If we have someone in rural Newfoundland, for example, who is manufacturing a product - maybe they do not know where the markets are. Maybe they do not know how to market what they have. Maybe they have a germ of an idea that is a very good idea but they do not know how to do a business plan. They do not know, if they get their business plan, how much money they will need. They do not know how many widgets they can make and they do not know where to sell their widgets when they get them made but that does not take away from the fact that it is a good idea. That is what we have to continue to do, encourage the people who live in rural Newfoundland to take their ideas that they have and go to places like your zone boards, your economic development associations, through your Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development so that you can take your idea - and what is an idea, you can flesh it out on paper and make it something that is concrete.

If you need some assistance again, in getting your marketing plan done, that is what these government programs are about. If you need to know, for example, where in the United States or the Eastern Seaboard you can sell your product, we have programs available to help you do that. We have been successful. We had some great success stories in this Province and we are continuing to have them. We are not only in low-end type of economic ventures or whatever. We have some very sophisticated, complex, IT type projects in this Province. I refer specifically to the Guigné proposal, the only company in the world that is going to have a piece of high-tech, first-class, aerospace property on board the space shuttle come January in 2003. It was designed and built right here in Newfoundland, in St. Philips. People do not realize that in the last two or three years government has encouraged these people.

I visited the site personally where this is being manufactured. A first-class, aerodynamic, aerospace property that nobody else in the world has and we have it here in Newfoundland and it is going to be on the space shuttle come January. People like the European Space Agency and Nassau have millions and millions of dollars to invest and they are putting it into this company in Newfoundland which has sixty-three people on the payroll. Of the sixty-three people on the payroll, something like 80 per cent of them have PhDs in everything from Mathematics to Physics. That is progress. We are not shipping out all of the brains. There are more leaving than we want to, but at least we are putting the programs in place so that we can keep some of these businesses here.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The minister's time is up.

MR. PARSONS: If I could just have a moment to clue up.

CHAIR: Does the minister have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. PARSONS: I would just like to say that everything is not rosy. It is certainly not rosy in rural Newfoundland; that is not by design or by wish of anyone. We want prosperity for everyone in this Province. We are on the right track. We do have a plan. Don't knock everything that is in place just because it is not working as quickly and as smoothly and as fast as some people would like it to be. If you have other ideas that are better, we would certainly appreciate you telling them to us. Don't keep it in the closet for God's sake and keep your ideas and your policies locked up because, God forbid, if it should ever be revealed to the people of this Province that you had some godsend ideas for economic development and you did not tell them. I do not believe in punishing the people of the Province either by not telling them something. So, I certainly invite any suggestions or comments that you might have to improve the system that we currently have in terms of our economic plan.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Very rarely, in the nine years in this Legislature, have I felt insulted or been insulted like the Minister of Justice has insulted members in this House on this side. I feel compelled to get up.

Now, we are talking about the income tax and he has indicated about the sheer hypocrisy of members on this side of the House. If you want to be specific about the bill we are talking about today, as leader of the party in 1999, I want to remind you of some hypocrisy, minister.

In the 1999 election, on about day five of the campaign, I, on behalf of the members of our party, unveiled what our tax plan would be for the people of this Province. On a leader's debate, the former premier, the person that you first got elected under and every member over there first got elected under, stood in the leader's debate, and this is what he said: I had the public service check out your tax plan. It will cost the people of the Province billions of dollars. Throughout the rest of the campaign he tried to campaign on that until Wade Locke, in an independent interview on TV when asked, showed the bags of money and suggested and said that probably the Tory plan is more likely to be more accurate.

What happened six months after the election? I was in Corner Brook at a Federation of Municipalities meeting when the report of the Premier's Advisory Council on the Economy rendered its recommendations on income tax. And guess what it was? It was point for point our plan: an immediate 5 per cent -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: - reduction in personal income tax, a recommendation to bring it to the national average as soon as it could, the elimination of the EDGE Program or a review of the EDGE Program. Those were the components that were contained in our tax plan, and that was the plan that you and your government implemented six months after tearing the stomach out of it publicly because you thought it was a good election ploy.

Minister, I am going to take you off your high horse right now, if you want to talk about hypocrisy. Ask your Premier, ask the Premier of this Province, whom you serve, when he was the Minister of Tourism, why he laid off public employees in the Cabot Corporation for purely punitive political reasons. What happened afterwards, Minister?

As the Minister of Justice, you should understand this above all else. What happened when Judge Wells eventually got to the court in the settlement? It was said clearly that you laid off people wrongfully, that you did so willfully, and that it should not have happened! How much did you pay those employees? Is that the action of a hypocritical government? Absolutely! A hypocritical government, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I am not going to stand in this House and listen to some member, on either side of the House, stand up in a willful way and insult and call each member, and impugn motives into other members, saying what hypocrites we are.

Let's review again. Let's talk about the Minister of Justice's own department, for example. Let's talk about Randy Druken.. Let's talk about Ronald Dalton. Let's talk about Gregory Parsons. Look them in the face and say: Do you think that my department has not been a hypocrite in how we have handled those people?

Minister, you are in no position to lecture this side of the House about what we can or cannot do. You are in no position to lecture anybody on this side of the House!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let's talk about hypocrites. For nine months in this Legislature, leading up to the 1999 provincial election, we called for a provincial energy plan in this House - to the former Premier, to the former Minister of Mines and Energy, when you had a plan to dam every river, it was called NUGS, non-utility generators system, privatization of the river system, to sell power back to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, stood up time after time in this House and said: No, this is a good plan.

On the eve of the election, because of public opinion, Mr. Chair, what happened? They announced our policy on non-utility generation; and, guess what it cost the people of the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Because they had entered into agreements with certain companies in this Province, they were held liable and over $1 million was paid from the taxpayers' pocket to cover up their incompetence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: And you have the gall to stand up and call this side of the House hypercritical!

Let's talk about something else. Let's talk about Trans City, and your legacy as a Liberal government. How many millions of dollars was wasted from the public Treasury by that government over there? You cannot get out from under the fact that, as a critical and integral part of the Premier and this government, decisions have cost millions upon millions of dollars, and you have the gall to call us hypocrites.

In the last election, during the election, we talked about accountability features in our election platform. One of them was the House of Assembly being televised. During the election, your leader said our Province could not afford it. What has happened since then? Thanks be to God, the people of the Province can see who the hypocrites are in this Legislature today because it is being televised! Talk about hypocritical. Don't lecture me on being a hypocrite!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: In1989, when the Wells government and the Liberal government took the Ombudsman and flushed it down the political toilet, there went accountability. For three elections later, it was this party that stood up and fought for the Ombudsman. The party that you got elected under, the mandate that you were elected under, the election that you were elected under, your leader, and I assume you, too, said no to that. What happened? Because public opinion changed, so, like the wind, did the Liberal government's opinion change. Finally, they came to their senses. Don't talk about being hypocritical.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Ultimately, Madam Chair, here is the big play: In 1999, in February, walking down that hallway, I happened to walk down behind former Premier Tobin and now Senator George Furey, when your Premier, the man that you served under, the man that appointed you to the Cabinet, stood in his caucus room and asked this to the people of the Province: Who is it, Mr. and Mrs. Newfoundland and Labrador, that you want to finish the job on Voisey's Bay and Lower Churchill? Is it me or Ed Byrne? During that election - and you will come to pay for this or stand up and be counted, ultimately - during the election. Not one ounce will leave of unprocessed ore. Not one ounce of semi-unprocessed ore. If there is no mine here for all the ore to be processed here, there will be no mining lease.

You do not say that today, do you? And, you have the gall and the nerve to call us hypocrites!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: You have the gall and the nerve to call us insulting!

We now have a Premier who was elected since 1996. In 1996, all Liberal members - a huge victory for them - campaigned, and it was a smelter on wheels. It was going into, and the oppressions were left that it was going into, every region of the Province: Baie Verte, Labrador, Botwood, Stephenville, your way, Bay of Islands, Argentia. It was the smelter on wheels.

In 1999, we sat in this House - let me back up. We sat in this House, and you did too, Minister, when we passed legislation that the mining industry worldwide and businesses worldwide said was draconian. They accused this Province and this Legislature of being a banana republic because it gave us the power, the Premier said at the time, to deal with Inco, to say that if we issued a mining lease, and if they did not do what they wanted to do, we could pull it back from them at any time. We were condemned, but members on this side of the Legislature supported unanimously that bill, and we still do.

How is it that you can stand in your own shoe leather today and call us hypocrites when your position, a position that you got elected upon, now has changed so dramatically that you can stand there and support a Premier who, on the one hand, got elected with a team that said none of it would be leaving, and the election was called on it, and now says the only two outstanding issues are: how much will go and for how long.

Who is the hypocrite, Minister? Who is the hypocrite?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I will say this: Before this debate is over, before the debate on this issue is over, each and every member in this House, and every one of you in the government, will have to stand to vote to see if any of you have the backbone to say there should be a public debate, that it should happen here before it is final and binding on the people of the Province, and we will see then who the hypocrites are!

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR( Ms M Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Labour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I think it is very fitting that I stand here today and give a chance for the Opposition House Leader to go and get some lozenges to clear his throat. This is the last day for the House to be open this week, and I want to leave him on a positive note here this afternoon. He doesn't have to go away feeling negative and feeling downtrodden, and looking for lozenges to clear his throat. I am going to leave him with some positive remarks here this afternoon, Madam Chair.

I am delighted to stand today and support my colleague, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, in Bill 6. As I was sitting here in the House this afternoon, listening to various commentary, I said to myself: the members opposite need something positive to carry them through the weekend, until Monday when they get back and hear us again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS THISTLE: I am going to tell you, it is my pleasure to stand today.

If I could have the attention of this House, Madam Chair, I would appreciate it.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: If you want to look at something positive, the members of this House only need to look at Economy 2002 and Budget 2002.

I want to tell you, Madam Chair, and all members of this House, the payroll tax alone has eliminated 2,000 businesses from the tax rolls. The threshold has been increased from $100,000 to $500,000, and we have been able to accomplish that in just five years.

As Minister of Labour, I want to tell you what is happening out there today with our labour relations and labour in general. At the end of this quarter of 2002, at the end of April, we have the best record on file in the past fifteen years for work stoppages in this Province; the very best record. In fifteen years we had no work stoppages, except for a day-and-a-half in my own District of Grand Falls-Buchans, with the dispute with Abitibi. The best on record in fifteen years, Madam Chair.

What does that say to businesses out there that might want to come to Newfoundland and Labrador and set up a business? I have to admit, being the Minister of Labour, during the past ten, fifteen years we have not had a good record in this Province of labour relations. I commend our Premier who, a year ago, decided that in order to get our economy moving we must have good labour relations in our Province. It was his vision that set up an entire new separate Department of Labour. Prior to that, of course, labour was part of some other portfolio.

There are a lot of issues in the Department of Labour that need attention on a day-to-day basis. I have heard it said by people in the labour movement and private enterprise that they needed an open door policy, they needed to be able to come in and talk to the Minister of Labour. They didn't want for all these issues to come on when it is at the expiration of a labour agreement.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I would like to ask the members on both sides if they would cease their conversations back and forth across the House. It is very difficult for the minister who is speaking and it is very difficult for me or any other person who is interested in listening. So, if you want to carry on conversations, I would suggest you take it outside the House.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your intervention.

Good things are happening in the Department of Labour. This year we passed several pieces of very important legislation, such as the Labour Relations Act, the Workplace Health Safety and Compensation Act, the Labour Standards Act; a complete overhaul, the biggest one in thirty years.

We realize that both men and women are in the workforce today and there is always the issue of family life and work life, and you have to create a balance so that someone who is at work can have the confidence and the comfort of knowing that their children are looked after, and there is a time when they can combine work and family life and make it a good lifestyle and a good work style.

Out of the Budget this year that was announced, we realize that with almost 15,000 businesses in our Province, our occupational health and safety inspectors who inspect them - we have eighteen in number who cover the whole Province, including Labrador. We realized that we were short in that area, so effective, with this year's Budget, we made an announcement that there would be $1.3 million allocated to hiring thirteen new health and safety inspectors. So the members of this House will be pleased to know that throughout our Province and Labrador there will be thirteen new health and safety inspectors hired in the coming months.

I want to support the member next to me. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs today announced in this House that $261 million will be spent on capital works funding. In my own district alone, just in the community of Grand Falls-Windsor, $8 million will be spent and that will allow our community of Grand Falls-Windsor to do a lot of much needed work that had been on the burner for several years. We are celebrating in Grand Falls-Windsor our 100th anniversary in 2005. A hundred years ago the AND Company Paper Mill was started. Part of that celebration will include the total refurbishing of the Joe Byrne Memorial Stadium which was the first stadium in Newfoundland and Labrador to have an ice surface on it. It was named in memory of Joe Byrne. So we are going to have a complete overhaul and refurbishing of the Joe Byrne Memorial Stadium. That will be $3 million of that money and the other $5 million will be spent in various projects throughout the town.

I hear members opposite talking about rural Newfoundland and what people can do and what this government has done to improve rural Newfoundland and improve the lifestyle for people in rural Newfoundland. I had the pleasure of having the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs accompany me throughout all my communities in my district in April. I have to tell you what one little community there did, a community with less than 100 people. A meeting was held in the community of Millertown. My colleague, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, was there and he knows. I stood up to bring greetings. When I did - the meeting in the town hall was to promote economic development. There was an economic development plan being presented for the community of Millertown, with less than 100 residents. When I got up in that meeting, I said: How many people here have come back to Millertown to make it their home? Now, there are less than 100 residents in Millertown. I said: Whoever you are, stand up. All of a sudden people started to stand up in the fire hall, the town council in Millertown. I started to count them. I had sixteen people who had come back to Millertown to make it their home, and for their businesses as well. These were people who were in jobs and professional lives outside of our Province that could attract a great deal of resources to the community of Millertown.

In that same evening, Abitibi Consolidated transferred 100 acres of their crown land to the community of Millertown so they could now develop a plan where they could sell residential and business lots to people who might come in to Millertown. So, this is an example of what people can do when they put their heads together. For a community that size, less than 100 people, for sixteen professional people to come back and say Millertown is my home and I am going to make it work here, that says a lot.

You want to look at the housing starts that have started in this Province in 2002. Just in St. John's alone, we heard today, there were over 250 starts since January. I spoke to the Mayor of Grand Falls-Windsor on April 15. He told me up to April 15 thirty new building lots had been sold just in the community of Grand Falls-Windsor. In the first four months of this year, and we know this is going to be a bumper year -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. minister that her time is up.

MS THISTLE: Thank you very much.

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. minister have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MADAM CHAIR: Leave granted.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to tell you that things are happening around this Province. The biggest thing that is happening is the air of optimism, the can-do attitude. Since I have been in politics, which is going into my seventh year, I have seen a remarkable change in the people of our Province. I have seen them develop a feeling that: yes, we can do it; there is no reason why we can't. That was evidenced just last year in Grand Falls-Windsor when 500 young people, people who are going to spend money, people who want to buy cars, people who need homes, people who are going to stop in at McDonald's or going to go into Canadian Tire, are going to need services. That is a big thing that has changed the lay of the land in Grand Falls-Windsor alone. These are not people from Grand Falls-Windsor. They are from everywhere throughout the Province and even outside the Province who have come home.

Then there is the mining. We have all heard the reports in the newspaper recently how gold - there are talks of a gold rush in Central Newfoundland. The activity in Central Newfoundland for mining has been unprecedented. We are seeing a lot of activity coming there and we are hopeful that we will have a new mine in the Millertown area to announce shortly; we are hoping that we will.

Madam Chair, I want to clue up by leaving the members opposite, in particular, this final remark. What is happening in this Province today is happening by everyone who has a positive attitude, and it is showing up in the record of new businesses in our Province. A record number of new businesses are being registered everyday of the week. It is showing up in a record number of people working in our Province; the highest ever on record up to October 31, 2001. It is showing up in the record number of tourists visiting our Province. It is showing up in the new and improved labour relations in our Province, and that only helps to build a strong economy. It proves that we are open for business. It is also showing up in our recent upgrade from Moody's yesterday. That did not happen by accident. That happened by good administration and I must compliment the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board who has done an excellent job, along with the members of our caucus and Cabinet. It is the first time ever that this credit rating has improved but what is showing up is that this Province is open for business. We have the clear indications, our labour relations are good, our tourist industry is up, our new business generators are up, the highest number of people are working. Why you would be negative on the other side of the House is beyond me.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to respond to some of the things related to Bill 6. I would also like to address some of the comments just made by the Minister of Labour. When she talks about a stable labour relations environment in the Province, I can tell the minister that all is not well within the labour relations environment. One of the things, I say to the minister, that makes it quite difficult these years that only happened a few short years ago is when it comes to organizing new members. It is made much more difficult today, Madam Chair, than it used to be, when all a union had to do was go into a workplace and sign up 50 per cent plus one of the members and they received automatic certification, for the most part. Now, you can sign up 100 per cent of the people who work there and still a vote has to be taken at some time down the road. That is very unfair, both to workers and to the bargaining units that hope to represent them in the future.

We talk about things like how great a shape this Province is in. Well, I can say to the minister that for the most part this Province is not in great shape. St. John's may be in great shape, some of the other larger communities may be in great shape but I can guarantee the minister one thing, that is not reflective all throughout this Province because I can assure her that in Labrador everything is not great and around rural Newfoundland everything is not great. For her to say that things are booming when this year, in this Province, for the first time in our history, the death rate will exceed the birthrate. I don't know how the minister thinks that is going to be booming, because it is not. The population in Labrador West, and the communities of Labrador City and Wabush have decreased significantly, almost in half to what they were a few short years ago. So, I say to the minister, that is not good news for Labrador West.

When we talk about things that the government is doing, initiatives in tourism, when we have the roads in this Province that we are expected to drive over as we live here, but also for tourists coming in - and I mentioned earlier today, the Trans-Labrador Highway, and opening Labrador to tourism. Well, Madam Chair, I can tell the minister that there is no question: that highway is not encouraging tourism because tourists who I have spoken to in the last year said they would never come back again and have to drive over roads that are in the condition that the Trans-Labrador Highway is in, particularly from the section of road, Ashuanipi River through the Esker turnoff. Being a gravel highway, 600 kilometres long, the Trans-Labrador Highway is subject to being - no matter how much work you do, it is a continuous job. It has to be kept at and maintained year after year after year; because, as you fix up one section of that highway, Madam Chair, there is another section deteriorating.

It is an ongoing battle and, prior to this Budget, we had money in a fund dedicated to transportation in Labrador. That is not there any more, or it won't be after Bill 10 passes through this House. I don't know where the minister thinks everything is boom and bust.

When we talk about the housing starts in the Province, I don't see too many new houses going up, as I travel this Province, with the exception of the St. John's area and the Grand Falls area that she mentioned, and maybe a couple of other major areas in the Province, but it is certainly not reflective of what is happening, for the most part, throughout the entire region of this Province.

We look at this Province as a great place to live, and it is in many ways, but there are also some very unfair things happening in this Province to the people who live here. Some of these things I have raised in recent days and recent months and recent years, particularly as it relates to the drug formulary in the Province. You know, when people are suffering from diseases like MS and Alzheimer's and others, and they need drugs that they cannot afford, they are being forced by this government to financially ruin themselves, their families, liquidate any RRSPs they may have, spend their children's education fund, to purchase drugs that they need for a disease that they did not ask for, that they did not self-inflict, that they were born with. That is very unfortunate and very unfair to many people in this Province who work hard to make a living, to provide for themselves and their families, and hopefully have enough left over to provide some of the finer things in life, so that they can go on vacations and retire and all these sorts of things. But, because of the position of this government, that is impossible for a lot of people afflicted with some of the diseases that I just mentioned. So, all is not well, I say to the minister. All is not well in this Province.

With the inspectors who you talk about, that they are going to be hiring for the health and safety division, I say to the minister, it is long overdue. It is long overdue in this Province. It is about time something like that happened, because we do not have, and never did have, enough people policing this Province and the workplaces to make sure that they are safe, to make sure that, when people go to work in the morning, they return home in the evening in the same condition that they are in. I also say to the minister, you can have all the inspectors you want; enforcement is the key to making sure that compliance is held to. You can have people going around this Province on a daily basis, but we have to make sure that the enforcement side of the regulations and the legislation is adhered to. Without that, it does not really matter how many inspectors you have. That is very important as well.

I say, Madam Chair, there are some good things happening in this Province, there is no questions about that. It is a Province that is the best Province in this country in which to live. There is no question in my mind about that, and I don't think there is any question in the mind of any member of this House, or any of the citizens. That does not necessarily mean that we are living in the Garden of Eden. There are still many things that we need to address; there are still many things that need to be done. There are a lot of people in this Province who may be happy they live here, but are certainly not happy with the conditions that they have to live under from time to time.

I say in closing, Madam Chair, with respect to the comments of the minister, all is not rosy. There are many things that this government has to address in order to make life for its citizens better. There are things that they can address, that they have the financial means to do, in order to make life better, but there also has to be the political will to make sure that it happens.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

It is certainly a pleasure for me to rise today and speak in support of Bill 6. I am prompted to rise with the comments made by the hon. Member for Waterford Valley regarding child poverty in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We, on this side of the House, recognize that even one child in poverty is one child too many. We all know that the resolution to child poverty is a full-time, good-paying job, and we on this side of the House are working quite diligently to accomplish that end.

When the hon. member rises in his place and talks about how one in four children are in poverty in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, he failed to mention that, right across this country, one in five children are in poverty. Yes, it is too much, but we, as a Province, are doing our best within our fiscal capacity to try and deal with that issue.

I just want to mention a number of things that this government is doing to try and alleviate the problem of child poverty in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We introduced a $10 million provincial Child Benefit Reinvestment Program for children, including family resource centres; $36 million invested over five years for Early Childhood Development, for improvement to child care and early literacy; we introduced a Mother Baby Nutrition Supplement to assist pregnant women and women with infants with the cost of eating healthy, and we do that until that child is one year old. We were the first Province in the country to allow families receiving social assistance to keep all of their federal family child benefits without seeing their social assistance benefits being cut.

The Department of Human Resources and Employment continues to work on a range of initiatives to remove the disincentives in social assistance programs, including: extended drug card coverage; an increase in child care subsidies; applicants for social assistance are permitted to retain higher levels of liquid assets; families who are successful in finding employment are allowed to retain more of their earnings without seeing their social assistance benefits being cut.

Last year, twenty-four income support clients received a range of employment and career support through Newfound Jobs. This fiscal year, the department will spend approximately $3 million more, Madam Chair, and assist in some 239 single parents through the Single Parent Employment Support Program.

I heard the hon. Member for Bonavista South talking about clawing back income tax refunds. The fact of the matter is, Madam Chair, that we allow people on social assistance to keep up to $500 in income tax that they get refunded. We are doing a lot more in this Province than the members opposite will give us credit for.

We have said that the key to poverty has always been a full-time, good- paying job. Last year, some 211,000 people were employed in this Province, the most that has been employed since the early 1990s. I feel confident, Madam Chair, that this will increase this year. With all the initiatives that are ongoing in this Province we feel pretty confident that the employment for people in this Province will increase.

I have been looking at some of the statistics. I heard the Opposition House Leader stand in his place and say that most of the jobs - we have created some 5,700 more jobs since March of last year. The Opposition House Leader says most of them were part time. Wrong, Madam Chair, absolutely wrong. The facts show that the part-time jobs have not changed. Therefore, if the part-time jobs have not changed then we have more full-time jobs in this Province than we ever had. That is the objective of this government, to go out and create employment, look at initiatives that we can be part of. This is not a single initiative by any single person or any single government. We are talking about partnership.

Tomorrow night, I am in Corner Brook talking to the employers, the supported employers, the Supported Employment Program. Here is what is good about this, Madam Chair. We support the people who are challenged in our society, the people who are mentally challenged. We have eighteen corporations around the Province that go out and work with clients. We have people in this Province who employ these people. They have become productive members of society. They are earning a living. They are getting their dignity back and they are doing well. Some 460 people have been helped through this program. Guess what, Madam Chair? Some 360 of these people are still employed. You know what? Better still, these are people who are developmentally challenged - and people should take a note of this - fifty of these people are self-employed. They have created their own employment. They are out there working because this government set up a partnership with HR&E, with Human Resources Development Corporation, the employment corporation, with communities, and went out and worked with people. That, Madam Chair, is something all of us, on both sides of the House, can be proud of. We will continue to work with people to seek out solutions to the problems that we have. I have said on many occasions that there is no one person in this Province who has the solutions to the problems that we have. But collectively, Madam Chair, working together with people, and in the communities with community leaders, we can and we will make a difference. It is showing.

In my district alone, the growth has been phenomenal. It was only a couple of days ago that I talked to the Conception Bay South Town Council under the infrastructure program. Another $12 million that we are investing into the community so that they can accommodate the growth that is taking place. Another $6.5 million for Paradise, Madam Chair. Think about it. Do you know what the Mayor of Conception Bay South said? It is phenomenal. Why did he say it was phenomenal? Because in 1999 this government took the initiative to work with large communities in this Province to help them put their infrastructure in place. We did that. In 1999 Conception Bay South got $20 million cost-shared 50/50 for their infrastructure program. What did they get in 2002, Madam Chair? Another $12 million because we want to be there and work with towns, work with municipalities, work with labour, work with all of these people so that we can find solutions to the problems that we have so that we can make a difference. Not me, Madam Chair, all of us. All of us working together for a common cause, that is what it is all about.

I realize what the Opposition's role is, to be critical, to obstruct, and to try and cause paranoia and that kind of a thing; but we can stand in our place and say that we have done our job and done it well because we want to make a difference. I do not think there is anybody in this House who would not want to see things changed. I understand they want to get a big public debate on the go on Voisey's Bay but I do not recall any business arrangement that the Province would make which was debated here in the House before an agreement was reached.

Back to people who are on social assistance, Madam Chair. We help people to transform from social assistance to paying jobs. We extend their drug card for six months to help them make that transition. We help low income earners who are not on social assistance; in fact, some 1,374 cases. We help to supplement their earnings because we know that they need help along the way, and that is what it is all about, helping people make it.

As I said, we have accepted the recommendations of the working group for victims of violence. We have worked with groups. We understand where they are coming from. We are implementing their recommendations. So, Madam Chair, when people rise and say that child poverty in this Province is not good, we admit that, but when we look at the situation across this country and say that one-in-four in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is living in poverty and we look at this great nation of ours where one-in-five is in poverty, Madam Chair, there is not much difference. This is a national issue.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. minister that his time is up.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: By leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: This is something that the national government, the federal government is going to have to become a partner with. We, as a Province, cannot resolve all the problems that we have on our own. We just do not have the fiscal capacity to do it. We are trying but we just cannot do it. We are trying our best. That is why we are entering into and negotiating a housing agreement, Madam Chair, where people can have affordable housing. Hopefully, over the next few months, that can be concluded. Now it is not my department, but I know it is being done through the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I believe that we are meeting the challenges to the best of our ability. I believe, Madam Chair, that we will continue to work with people who want to help, who want to make a difference and want to make their views known. This government is a wide open-minded government. We will do anything that we can possibly do to make a difference for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am certainly delighted to get up today. As a matter of fact I feel compelled to get up today, especially with comments from ministers on the other side of the House today. You almost have to sit back for a minute and try to remember that they are the government. For awhile there, I was listening to the Minister of Justice, I was starting to believe that he was just an observer in the House, that he was not there for the last number of years, that this government was not in power for the last thirteen years. I cannot help but remember, and I made note of it here, talks about a plan. They have had a plan. Madam Chair, there was a famous coach one time who said the best plan on paper is no good. It is absolutely useless. The paper is useless unless you can execute the plan. The problem is, Madam Chair, that the thirteen years should have been time enough to execute a plan.

When they talk about a plan on economic renewal and so on they do not have a monopoly on optimism in this Province. Whenever we come across - as all members, I have all respect for that. All of us, as members, come across people who have business ideas, business plans, young entrepreneurs especially, we all deal with those. I deal with them on a daily basis and we encourage them to pursue business ventures and so on because we all want to see them in the Province. Nobody has a monopoly on optimism in this Province, Madam Chair. All of us in this House - I believe that every member elected has a tone of optimism to things that are happening in their own district, but certainly throughout the Province. The way the Minister of Justice spoke was that they were the only ones who are optimistic.

First of all, we are the Official Opposition. The word opposition means to oppose. That is what our job is. As a matter of fact, Madam Chair, many people in the electorate will tell you, not just in this Province but throughout Canada, they hope that there is a good Opposition because our job is to monitor, to oppose, to find problems with the government of the day. Madam Chair, to be quite frank about it, they have made it quite easy for us to be in Opposition because there is so much to oppose. Everyday, on a daily basis, from our districts, from every district in this House there are examples. There are examples of constituents who call you with problems and, of course, who you meet with, different groups that you meet with. So it is quite easy, but it is especially easy to oppose when a government has fallen down on a plan. Now, it is either one thing or the another: either they have a plan and they haven't executed it, or really they do not have a plan.

Let's just take one example, the ones that I have used over and over in this House of Assembly because I am quite familiar with it being the critic for that particular portfolio for some two-and-a-half years: transportation. Just take one example. Many members agree with it because I know even ministers that I have talked to agree about it. Transportation. Even the current Minister of Transportation agrees with it, that there is no plan for transportation in this Province. Every single year since I have been here for the last eight or nine years, minister after minister, Madam Chair, I would meet with, different colleagues, I am sure government members have met with and it is the same thing every year. Around May or April, start lining up, present your petitions. Let phone calls come to the minister - and it is still not announced yet today, but here we are going to have a plan this year for road construction.

The minister knows, and all members here know, that this year alone - and I will be conservative in the numbers - there is, at least, a $300 million demand, probably more, for road construction that needs to be done this year. That is in all of our districts. I know it is. It is all over. Gravel roads; still 900 kilometres still not even paved. After fifty-three years of Confederation, we have 900 kilometres of unpaved roads in this Province. Now, Madam Chair, lay on top of this, because this is just one example of a plan that the minister was talking about: transportation. On top of that, we have some 1,500 kilometres of pavement that is twenty-five years or older. In other words, it is gone. Engineers will tell you it is way past its life. It has to be replaced. So, just on the conservative numbers, 2,400 kilometres of roadwork that needs to be done; $300 million. Guess what? Again this year - and we do not need the Finance Minister to straighten us out on this, Madam Chair - if there is $300 million of demand for roads and we have $20 million again this year - don't use your calculator, just figure it out - it is not going to work. You have been doing it as an Administration for the last nine years. When are you going to figure out that it is not working?

The most we have heard - and to be honest with you, this minister with his powerpoint presentation has probably been the most done yet in the last nine years. We criticized the powerpoint presentation - whether it was or not, we will not get into that issue today - but the truth is, that is the most I have seen in the last nine years. They were going up with a powerpoint presentation and a cuddly proposal to the federal government that we have a problem in the Province. We have been saying it for years. Not we, the people around the Province have been saying it. This spring every reminder - and the Member for The Straits & White Bay North coined a good phrase, in my opinion, when he talked about the winter pavement. As soon as the spring hits, and everything starts to thaw out, we are reminded of what a state the roads are in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, I say to the minister, I do not ever stop talking about roads and I am not going to stop talking about roads because everyday when I go back to my district or every time I go back to my office, somebody is calling about the deplorable conditions of the roads; and not just my district, I say to the minister. I have been up the Northern Peninsula, I was in Twillingate the other day, and the same thing with the road conditions. We all know we have the problems. I am not saying that it is just in my district. I know that.

My point, Madam Chair, is this: The minister was talking about the plans, and the government has a plan. I will just use one example that there is no plan. It is a band-aid solution and something that you react to. A reaction plan, I call it; not an action plan, a reaction plan. What are we going to do this year? Oh, we will wait to see who screams the loudest and presents the most petitions. We will send a few engineers out around, and out of that $300 million demand we will take care of $20 million and try to keep everybody quiet for another year.

Madam Chair, what they are forgetting is that a problem that is not taken care of and addressed just keeps getting worse and worse and worse. If you have a credit card that you have a minimum charge of $200 on and you put $20 on it, you know that sooner or later you are going to have to cut up that credit card and you are going to have a problem. The same thing is happening with the road situation in this Province. The same thing is happening with the infrastructure in this Province. There is no plan. If there is, it is not being executed. We talked about it today, mentioned about infrastructure throughout municipalities. We are trying to address that too.

Madam Chair, there have been suggestions of doing a multi-year plan. I haven't seen it yet, but they are supposed to be doing a multi-year plan that is going to address it. You have to take in the scope of the entire problem if you are ever going to get it addressed, and that is what this Administration has never done. They have flopped from one year to the next. They have done borrowing on top of borrowing. They are jumping up and down about a credit rating. I think the people in this Province are scared, scared that this government is going to take that as a positive to do more borrowing, and God knows where they would spend that, where they are going to be accounted for, Madam Chair. That is what people are worried about, when you see a plan of no plan. That is what it is, Madam Chair.

These problems didn't happen last month, as the minister seems to think; it just happened around the corner. This is a culmination of thirteen years of this Administration. That is what it is. People don't forget that easy anymore. You are still reminded as you go around the Province. I can remember watching the Honourable Clyde Wells in this House. Then, of course, the Honourable Brian Tobin came back and sat in that seat over here, Madam Chair. He shook at times, he put on that great display of how he was going to take it all on. I watched all of that here. I watched it year after year. It is a funny thing, when former Premier Tobin came back, after three months, I believe, if I am not mistaken, he said: This is not my mandate. This is the Honourable Clyde Wells mandate. This is not my mandate. In three months he called an election: I want a mandate. He was going to be there and he was going to spend his full term and prepare a plan for this Province. No, that didn't happen, Madam Chair, because just less than three years, using the process that is in place, he stood up and said: No, we are going to the polls again.

The Member for Kilbride said it right today, because we have all heard it here. All the members who are here know it full well. He stood up, and the election was about nothing else - you can open and close your Red Book, although it was in the Red Book also, but every member sitting on that side of the House knows full well that when the Premier stood, it wasn't a flippant promise, it was the mandate that: I want to be the one to negotiate Voisey's Bay. That is what was said in this House, with a standing ovation which was used so often, Madam Chair. I was here when he stood that day, when he shook and told everybody: I want a mandate to negotiate Voisey's Bay, and I am the man to do it. That is what he said. So, he said, I am going to the people early. Two years early I am going to the people to get that mandate to negotiate Voisey's Bay.

I have heard him say, Madam Chair, to many people: We are staying the full term, and I am going to see this through. Every member over there believed it. I never did believe it. I never did believe that he would stay the full term and never did believe that he would finish the deal on Voisey's Bay. The truth is, he stood up and shook in this House and promised that he would take them on. I could use quotes here all day long, all kinds of examples of not one spoonful.

He talked about a marketer with Inco one day, talking about how he was going to take the ore out of the Province

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: By leave, Madam Chair?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MADAM CHAIR: Leave granted.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will just clue up by saying this: The minister and people on the opposite side of the House today stood, one after another, and talked about the rosy picture and the optimism in the Province. Madam Chair, there is some, but there are also some realities. Sixty-five thousand people left this Province since 1992. You go out to rural Newfoundland and you will see roads and the state that they are in, and you will people packing up U-hauls and leaving this Province. People in Middle Arm called me the other day telling me that eighteen families left. You go down there and tell them about the rosy picture there is. I am not going to do it. Maybe some government member will go down and stand there and do it, maybe during an election. It is not the reality of the day. The reality of the day is that people, especially in rural parts of this Province, just want the basis needs again: decent drinking water; a decent road to drive over. Let's start there. We do not have to start with pie-in-the-sky promises, but we can start with a decent road to drive over and decent water to drink. That is what people in my district are saying. We will start with the basics first and move on from there.

I will finish with this: Even there, with the basic needs in this Province, you have to have a plan. It cannot be just one year where we go and beat on the minister's door and try to put the best foot forward and argue over the scrapes that are being thrown out, because that is what is happening when it comes to the roads program in the Province.

So, if the minister wants to stand on his feet and call us hypocrites, then he is going to have to show us where he has executed the plan and where this has worked in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, because it has not worked in my district.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate today. I have heard some very interesting remarks made today. I don't like to get into some of the history too much. If we go there, that opens up a lot of doors.

I want to concentrate, in the few minutes I have, on the bureaucracy in Ottawa, Madam Chair. I want to talk about what is going on in Ottawa and how it affects all of us here. I have been in this House for some years and I have seen us deal with both governments in Ottawa, both of different stripes, and when I see what the bureaucracy in Ottawa has been able to do to this place it bothers me a great deal.

When you look at what happened September 11, last year, the tragedy in the United States, what happened was: Stephenville, Gander, St. John's, Goose Bay, Happy Valley all got called upon by Canada, they got called upon in an emergency for North America, for the world. They got called upon because we had these facilities and because of our geography in North America. We got called upon in a world emergency because were valuable at that time. I was one, like many here, I believe, in this Province, who, first of all, knew our people would come to the forefront, deal with that issue, take care of the people and make them feel like they were at home in twenty-four hours, like they lived here all their lives, as they did over my way, in Stephenville, and everywhere else. In Stephenville-Bay St. George they did a suburb job of dealing with people who had never seen our place before.

It brought home something else to me. It brought home something even further, when you think about it, about the way that we have been treated in Canada. It bothers me big time, and I am delighted that our Premier has seen fit to have a Royal Commission put forward, because when we look at our relationship with Canada, and we look at the equalization, which our Premier and our Minister of Finance are trying to renegotiate, when we talked about needing money for roads and needing money for health care, well, no wonder we need the money; because of the way the deal that we have was formulated.

We have a deal that the Ottawa bureaucrats decided, and they convinced our politicians in Ottawa that this is the way you have to do it, because if you do that for Newfoundland and Labrador, if you listen to their needs and their concerns, well you will have to do it for everybody else. That argument has got to come to an end and that is what we have to accomplish in this House of Assembly. We have been at this for a number of years, where the revenues that we are getting are generated by new industries that we are creating. Every time we create a new industry, 90 per cent of it is going back to Ottawa. We cannot let that continue in the future.

This Royal Commission is one of the best things I have seen ever come across in this Newfoundland and Labrador for us; to look at the black and white, to look at exactly the balance sheet between us and upper Canada and what goes on with the agreements, these financial agreements that have been signed, and these equalization clauses that are there, that Ottawa bureaucrats do not want to look at.

You know, I went back and read when Newfoundland and Labrador was negotiating its Terms of Union, Madam Chair. I tell you, it is very interesting reading. Our history is very relevant to where we are today. Canada was not interested in this Province in the early 1930s and the late 1930s. They only got interested when the U.S. got interested, in the war years. They got interested in us then, because the U.S. showed up and put some bases here. So, when the bases were put here in Stephenville and Argentia, and they got put here in Pepperrell and so on, Canada decided that they were going to get interested and we got a negotiation under way.

You know, you just cannot have a once in a while or once in every decade interest in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are a valuable piece of Canada, and my hope for this Royal Commission, and I think the hope of all of us, is that this Commission which is spearheaded by Vic Young, and I think that is a great choice, to do this effort, and the other two candidates there, the two people put forward, Sister Davis and Judge Igloliorte from Labrador, are great people who will independently look at this whole arrangement, all of these arrangements - the Atlantic Accord, what it was supposed to be. You know, Ottawa signed on and said: You will be the principal beneficiary. It is in the Atlantic Accord. What are we getting for that? I think what it will do too - this Royal Commission effort - my other hope is that it will arm our MPs in Newfoundland and Labrador who are trying to make inroads in Ottawa. Really, it will give them some black and white, some facts to argue with.

We know what we contribute to Canada. We know that we are the cultural capital of Canada. We are. We have a lot of talent, but we have to get Canada to listen to the aspirations of Newfoundland and Labrador. I will give an example. I have the classic example. I go back to the U.S. bases that were built here, and the defence expenditures that are here in Newfoundland and Labrador versus Atlantic Canada. Mr. Chair, it is stark. These numbers are stark. For the record, I am going to read them out because it is astounding when you look at, in Atlantic Canada, the defence expenditures here in Newfoundland and Labrador versus Nova Scotia versus New Brunswick. Let's just take it for Atlantic Canada. These are numbers up until 1999, so this is three years ago. They have not changed very much. I would say they have gone down.

If you look at the numbers, in 1999, in Nova Scotia, there was over $900 million worth of expenditure for defence spending in Nova Scotia. There were 10,000 people working on the Department of National Defence payroll in Nova Scotia. Newfoundland, less than $100 million; and up in Goose Bay, where my hon. member for Menihek, the Minister for Labrador Affairs, is up there trying to protect the base, we have revenues coming in there of over $40 million or $50 million from international, other countries, coming in, and we have less than $100 million worth of expenditure. So, there are 9,000 people in the difference on the payroll between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is not even counted in equalization. That is a separate social expenditure that they have, that runs Halifax harbour and all of its industries and its procurement. We are over here and we don't have a frigate. I don't think we have a frigate here that protects offshore. We have the Coast Guard but we do not have a defence frigate. I do not know if there is one, I have not found it yet. I would like to see one. We do not have an F18 stationed in Newfoundland and Labrador, so we have a problem.

Just on defence expenditures alone, we could be having - if we had even a quarter of what Nova Scotia is getting spent. New Brunswick, $580 million three years ago. They have a number of bases in New Brunswick. We are here in Newfoundland and Labrador, with the whole 200-mile limit, with all the fishery out there, the NAFO problems we are wrestling with, which our Minister of Fisheries is trying to deal with, and we have this type of spending going on. We have been trying to work at this. The Minister of Government Services and Lands, the Member for Gander, the Minister for Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, we have been working on this, and the Minister of Labrador Affairs, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. We have a major effort going on, trying to convince Ottawa they have to spend more defence money in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The highest participation rate, per capita, in the defence forces of Canada, are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Major. We have cadet bases in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, youth cadet bases that we should have established here.

That is one area, just one area of major spending that could impact our economy, that makes some sense. I hope that what we will have in the future, when this Royal Commission goes to have a look at all the different arrangements, Mr. Chairman, when they look at it all, that they are going to help wake up Upper Canada and help wake up our Ottawa, because we have to wake them up. This cannot continue.

It cannot be that you are the principal beneficiary for oil revenues but you are only going to get 10 per cent. That is not the way that the word is defined in the dictionary. The dictionary says, principal beneficiary, you get 50 per cent plus 1 per cent minimum. We are getting 10 per cent. So, that cannot continue. The defence expenditures cannot continue. When you look at what happened last fall, September 11, to see that, it just highlighted for us, our geographic position. What we have to do is wake up Canada and say: Canada, our role has to be looked upon to be what it should be instead of: well, once in awhile we are going to pay attention to you.

That is part of our mandate. We have to do that. We have to make sure that we do not just do it with rhetoric, that we do it with facts. That is why the Royal Commission is an action item, and I think it is a big item. It is a major item for us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Big time. You know, we are going to get the facts and we are going to lay them out and we are going to have a strategy about how to lay them out. We are going to have to lay them out.

Hopefully, Mr. Chairman, everybody in this House will support that effort because, in Ottawa, the bureaucrats just love having the House of Assembly tear each other up, because that is what they like to see.

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I will finish up.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. K. AYLWARD: These defence numbers, this is just the start because we are going to have more documents to release as to what the arrangements are with Canada on a gradual basis, because we are going to represent the people of this Province to make sure we get a better deal in this Canada.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Chair, it is with great pleasure that I stand and talk a little bit about Bill 6, which is An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. I recognize that Bill 6 deals with a method of calculating income tax, but what I want to do is to talk a little bit about how we spend the tax revenue that we generate in this Province.

The Minister of Environment just talked about, in reference to September 11, and September 11 highlighted for the rest of the world what a great Province we are, how caring we are, and how we take care of people who are put in a very vulnerable position, how we take care of people who are disadvantaged, and how we take care of people who are in desperate need. But one of the ironies of this, Mr. Chair, is what we are doing to our senior citizens and what we are doing to the elderly of this Province. That reflects a very different kind of attitude. It reflects a Province that really does not care. It reflects a Province that doesn't take care of the people who are most vulnerable. It is a sad commentary when we look at some of the things that are happening to the seniors in this Province and how we are not providing for them, and how, in lots of cases, we can characterize it as being outright neglect.

I just want to talk about a couple of very specific examples. When we start looking at our seniors, as they get in a position in life where they become less independent, they rely on people like ourselves in the Legislature to ensure that we have in place appropriate legislation, and put in place appropriate social programs, to help provide for them. When I start looking around the Province, around my own district - now in my current role as critic for health policy and planning, I am continuously getting calls from people around this Province telling me horror stories of the circumstance that either they find themselves in, or that their mothers or fathers are in.

I just want to use a couple of examples, as we talk about long-term care facilities. As we look around this Province today, there are many people who are lying in hospital beds because they cannot get into long-term care facilities. They are using up valuable health care dollars in an acute care setting which is inappropriate care, while, in fact, they should be in a long-term facility.

Mr. Chair, you, yourself, have presented petitions in his House over the last two or three weeks where you described the conditions in your district, in Corner Brook, as woefully inadequate, I think was your term, where you are talking about the desperate need for a new long-term care facility in your district out in Corner Brook.

We start looking at places like Carbonear where we need a major re-development of new long-term care facilities in that region of the Province. In Clarenville, in Trinity North: That has been an area that has been in desperate need of long-term care for quite some time. I just want to pick that one as an example of what we are doing.

In the last number of years we have seen numerous examples, Mr. Chair, of people who live in the general Clarenville area, either on Random Island or down on the Southwest Arm, who find themselves in a situation where they need to be admitted to a long-term care facility. We have had an example of a person from down on the lower end of Random Island who needed to be admitted to long-term care, an elderly person - their spouse was still alive - who found themselves being admitted to a long-term care facility in Bonavista only to find the distance was too great, they could not travel back and forth. What happens when you have that separation after being married for fifty-five or sixty years? The quality of life just starts to degenerate quickly. Not only does the person who is admitted to that long-term care facility find themself separated from their family, separated from their friends, unable to have people come in and visit them, to share quality time with them, to be able to reminisce about times when things were more pleasant, reminisce about their past experiences and enjoy special celebrations, birthdays, anniversaries, Christmas and the like, not only does that person find themself in that separation situation, but the family members who are left at home, the spouse who is left at home recognizing that their husband or wife is now some two or three hours away - that separation creates such an anxiety, that what you are finding, Mr. Chair, is that in the final years of those peoples lives, they are finding themselves in a very desperate situation, finding themselves very lonely; only because we have not adequately prepared, we have not adequately planned, and we are not adequately providing for those people at this vulnerable stage of their lives.

We had another situation, Mr. Chair, in my district where we had someone having to leave the Clarenville area and being admitted to a long-term care facility in Grand Bank. Over the course of the winter months, difficult road conditions, hazardous travel conditions, they found themselves not able to visit on a regular basis.

Just think of this, Mr. Chair, and I ask anybody in this House to just think for a moment and picture yourselves, or picture your mother or your father or your grandmother or your grandfather in a situation - and we need to personalize this, because we really need to understand this. Just picture that for a moment. You find yourself living in the community in which you live today, having your mother and father close to you, where you are able to provide for them, help them and care for them, and they have been married for fifty-five or sixty years. Just think about this: If your mother or father had to leave their home today and move to a community some two-and-one-half hours drive away, and you had to look at your mother and say: Mom, you have to drive, if you want to see Dad anymore, and you are forced to drive two-and-a-half to three hours over treacherous road conditions at your age of seventy-five or eighty years. You are going to have to travel that kind of distance to be able to visit on a regular basis. You are not going to be able to help them celebrate their birthdays. You are not going to be able to be with them necessarily on your anniversary. Just imagine, having been married for fifty-five or sixty years, and you tell a person that is what they have to face for the remaining years of their lives. That is the kind of thing that we have done to a lot of seniors in this Province, Mr. Chair, and that is the kind of thing that we continue to do, knowing the difference, recognizing that we have gaps in service and we refuse to take an action.

I just want to use Clarenville as an example, and I just want to share with you a chronology of events that have happened going back to the mid-1980s. In the mid-1980s, Mr. Chair, there was a provincial bed study done in this Province of all long-term care beds and acute care beds. At that time, that study, a Nycum Study - William Nycum did a study at time and said: In the Clarenville area there should be some seventy-five beds provided that there were home care support systems in place. Nothing got action; again, Mr. Chair, continuously. In 1994, nine or ten years later, Irene Baird and Associates of St. John's did another study, again confirmed the results of the 1986 study and said: We need to have fifty to fifty-five long-term care beds built in Clarenville. Again, no action, absolutely nothing happened.

Then what happens, Mr. Chair? No one believes it. In 1996, the Provincial government brings back the same group from the 1980s, William Nycum and Associates. They do another study, now the third study in ten years. They do another study and they say - guess what? - yes, we agree. We were right in 1986, Irene Baird was right in 1994, you need to build forty-five long-term care beds in Clarenville. What happens? No action. In 1999, they come back again and say: We will reaffirm what we said in 1996 and, yes, we still need long-term care beds in Clarenville, we need forty-five beds.

I say to the Minister of Fisheries, who is over there searching for my response to the Throne Speech last year, so he doesn't have to read it for the House, let me tell him what I said. Because last year the Minister of Finance stood on her feet and said: We are finally going to take some action and we are going to put $500,000 in the Budget so we can start to plan for a long-term care facility in Clarenville. Yes, to the Minister of Fisheries, I did stand on my feet in response to the Speech from the Throne and said: That is a wonderful idea, that is something we should do, and I commend that government for doing it at that time. So you do not need to search for the Speech. I will tell you what is in it, and I commend the government for that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The member's time is up.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: By leave, Mr. Chair, just to clue up. Can I just clue up?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

CHAIR: The member has no leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give him a minute to clue up. Give him some time to clue up.

CHAIR: The member has no leave.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to have a few minutes to talk about this bill and be able to draw some analogies as to what has been said here on both sides of the House this afternoon. The member across the way from Trinity North, in his explanation of the health care system, explained it quite clearly and I think the Member for Stephenville, the minister here, explained it quite clearly as well. We recognize here in the Province, with the number of people that we have, with the limited resources that we have, we are spending forty-five cents, I think it is, to every dollar that we have in health care.

The federal government, the Minister of Finance, only recently with their ministers across the country, went to a ministers' meeting with Minister Martin in Corner Brook and says to the Finance Minister: Look, you have to be a part of the system. You have to give us new dollars. A part of the home care, we recognize that it is a growing, growing demand on this government. It has gone from a few hundred thousand to many millions of dollars and we still do not have enough.

We recognize the character of our Province as well. When we realize that we have hundreds of communities stretched across from Cape Chidley all the way to Cape Race and then up to the southern part, Cape Ray on the South Coast of the Province. We have hundreds of communities, the same population as the City of Winnipeg. We have to bring infrastructure and health care to all of these communities. We have just recognized that, from the department point of view, in Municipal Affairs. We have 278 councils, 151 local service districts, 100 communities that are unincorporated. We have demands that we, as a Province, find it difficult to do.

Let me give you an example, and where I said that the federal government should help us as well. From a provincial government; we have a part of our Capital Works Program where we, as a government, will pick up the share for many of the smaller communities that have indicated their willingness - and many of them are paying $365 a year for water and sewer; a dollar a day. We have said, as a government, we will - in instances in small municipalities - pick up 90 per cent of your share. I will give you an idea. We are spending approximately $100 million this year in infrastructure. Guess how much of it comes from the feds? Ten million. The others come from the communities and the governments in here. This is what happens. What government has to do in Ottawa, like the Minister of Environment just said a few moments ago, the bureaucrats - and I am not talking about whether they are Liberal or Tory, we have seen both of it happen. We have had good people represent us in Ottawa. We had John Crosbie who represented us. We had Don Jamieson who represented us. We have had people - but the thing about it, it is so ingrained in them that we are down here, we do not need it.

Canada has to recognize that within Confederation there are sister provinces and territories that need special assistance. Just as we, as a provincial government, recognize it, so they have to recognize it. If it does not, we will never be able to get all the hundreds of millions of dollars needed for transportation. We will never be able to do all we want to do in water and sewer. We will never be able to do what we want for education. We will never be able to do all the things that we want to do for child poverty and so on.

This is a country, and Canada is one of the best countries recognized for everybody to live in. But, within Canada, within the territories, within the provinces there is disparity. There are areas where we need special help and we are one of the provinces that need it. It is about time that these people recognize it. That is what the Royal Commission is about. In fact, we should have had it done before, but I am glad that we are finally doing it now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: At the end of the day there is going to be some real eyeopeners for the people across this country when they recognize what we brought to Confederation and what we have gotten out of it. Sure we got a lot. When we look at - for all our senior citizens we have gotten all the social programs that are characteristic across the country, but there has to be different formulas, there has to be different cost-sharing arrangements for our natural resources.

When we think of the White Rose, Hibernia, and we think of the Terra Nova, the dollars that would go back into the Ottawa treasury to deliver more to Ontario, more to Alberta, there has to be a change. When we think about what is happening in Voisey's Bay and if do - I am hoping that we will get an agreement for the people of Labrador and for the people of the Island part of the Province. I am hoping that we will because we need it. If we do need it, who do you think the biggest beneficiary of it is going to be? Ottawa. They are going to take millions and millions of dollars out of it that should be ours, and that has to change. If we are not prepared - and this has crossed party lines because all of us are involved in that, on both sides of the House, and we have to work together.

I will tell you what it comes down to sometimes. It is like when the former Minister of Fisheries was here talking about the seals and we talk about it so much that, in a sense, it has no impact. I will tell you what it is like. It is like a cloth that has been used to iron a long time and the cloth loses its fibre and it loses its texture and it becomes seared and there is no conscience in it. This seems to be the same situation for the people in Ottawa in how they deal with us. They do not want to listen. They do not want to recognize the things that we have here. So, it is in that sense that we, as a group of people, have to be vigilant and we have to be -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: I recognize that, and do you know what? I say this and it might be partisan politics: I believe that Beaton Tulk and John Efford will do well for us. I am telling you that right now. I say it for Beaton Tulk here. Beaton Tulk and John Efford, these two guys have a heart and they have compassion. They have understanding -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. LANGDON: - for us as Newfoundlanders.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: I believe that when John Efford and Beaton Tulk arrive in Ottawa, they will make a difference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Would the members to my left and to my right keep it down. Very much down.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. LANGDON: I honestly believe, as I said earlier, that when people like Beaton Tulk and John Efford arrive in Ottawa they will have a conscience and they will be able to work with us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Sometimes you get the idea that these people have been around for a long time and they do not care. I will tell you what they do have, like us on both sides of the floor here, they have compassion for people in this Province. They know it. They have been there. They have experienced it with us, both as a government and both as an Opposition. They have seen that the federal government has neglected us and it is their duty and it is their right, and I believe at the end of the day they will make a difference because I am telling you, if they do not make a difference, it is going to be very, very difficult for us as a government to be able to do what we want for Trinity North and what we want to be able to do for Baie Verte and what we want to be able to do for Fortune-Hermitage. It is their collective will, their collective effort at trying to convince the federal government that they need to look at, not only Newfoundland and Labrador, but Nova Scotia. Look at New Brunswick. Look at Iqaluit. Look at the Yukon. Look at the Northwest Territories. Look at Manitoba. Look at Saskatchewan. These provinces have trouble too. When you go there as minister and look at the needs they have in housing....

In Iqaluit, when I talked to the minister last fall at the conference in Quebec, they had major problems, similar to us, and we are waiting for the federal government. Hopefully, shortly we can do an agreement with them where we will spend $30 million to do improvements in social housing in this Province, where we can look after some of the needs for people who cannot look after themselves. These are the types of things that we have to do and these are things which I believe, if we work together collectively, we can make happen.

Mr. Chairman, I would like at this time to adjourn debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. LANGDON: Oh, I am sorry about that. I thought it was what I had to do.

I will say, just to conclude, Mr. Chairman, it doesn't matter where we come from as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and who we represent. As the Opposition House Leader, the Member for Kilbride, said today: When the time comes for Voisey's Bay, we will see where we all stand and where we have a backbone, if we are not jellyfish, or whatever the case might be.

I have come here to represent, as best as I can, the people who sent me here, the people from my district. I believe that I, along with many others, the people who have worked in the communities from the Coast of Bays, from the development associations, from the councils, working together as stakeholders, that we have made a difference. I believe that there is a difference in rural parts of the Province today than there was a number of years ago. People are becoming more and more involved and are becoming interested in their communities and they are coming forward to be councilors and to be leaders. I believe in school councils, no matter what the case may be, because people realize that their community, wherever they are, whether it is in city or in the smallest community in this Province, that unless they work together and give a good honest effort, then they will find it very difficult to be able to prolong the life of their own communities. We recognize that, and we want to work with them, to make sure that it happens.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the imposition of taxes on income."

On motion, resolution carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole on Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report they have adopted a certain resolution and a recommendation that a bill be introduced to give effect to same.

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

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000." (Bill 6)

On motion, bill read a first, second, and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment, I want to make some announcements about committees again. The Government Services Committee will meet on Monday, May 13, at 9:00 a.m. in the House, to review the Estimates of the Department of Finance and the Public Service Commission.

The Social Services Committee will meet at 7:00 p.m. in the House on Monday, May 13, to continue their review of the Estimates of the Department of Health and Community Services.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House on its rising do adjourn, and that this House do now adjourn.

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